DAP Caulk Named in Multiple Victims Mesothelioma Lawsuits
Roughly 3,000 Americans are diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma each year, and over 40,000 die each year from asbestos-related diseases. Remarkably, the same companies are named over and over in lawsuits accusing them of negligently and knowingly allowing victims to be exposed to asbestos. In a recent court hearing, families of three separate victims accused the same caulk manufacturer of responsibility, and though the company tried to evade liability, a New York judge ordered them to face the claims.
Three Mesothelioma Victims Name Same Caulk Manufacturer
Malignant mesothelioma is caused by exposición al amianto, and in most cases that exposure occurs on the job. In three claims filed separately in New York’s asbestos litigation court, the families of Anthony Torio, Mario Bellicose, and Thomas Learmond all pointed to their loved ones’ long work histories in the building trade, during which they either used or were in proximity to others using DAP caulk. They blamed asbestos in the product for their painful deaths.
DAP’s attorneys argued against being held responsible for each man’s mesothelioma. They called the claims “speculative” and defended the company by noting that not all of the company’s caulk products contained asbestos at the time that the men used it. In support of this argument, they submitted testimony from a former employee.
Judge Denies DAP’s Motion to be Dismissed from Mesothelioma Claims
Though the company’s representative said there was no way to attribute the men’s mesothelioma to their product, he failed to submit evidence that it could not have caused their illness. The absence of this level of proof effectively eliminated their ability to have the case dismissed as a matter of law. Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County pointed out that the bar is high for dismissing a case, and the company had failed to reach it, while the victims’ attorneys had submitted unequivocal testimony supporting their claim.
The court’s ruling highlights how repeated identification of the same asbestos-containing product across multiple mesothelioma cases can reinforce liability rather than weaken it. By rejecting DAP’s attempt to fragment responsibility based on product variations, the judge emphasized that companies must affirmatively prove their products could not have caused exposure, not merely suggest uncertainty. For mesothelioma families, the decision confirms that consistent testimony across separate cases can establish a compelling exposure narrative. For manufacturers, it signals that long-term use of asbestos in consumer products carries cumulative legal risk that grows as patterns of harm emerge.
Paquete de compensación financiera GRATUITO
- Información sobre despachos de abogados que recuperarán su INDEMNIZACIÓN MÁS ALTA
- Aprenda cómo cobrar en 90 días
- Solicite su parte de $30 mil millones en fondos fiduciarios
