Multiple Asbestos Companies Attempt to Evade Family’s Mesothelioma Claim
One of the most important parts of preparing a mesothelioma claim is identifying the companies that should be named as defendants. The process involves going through the victim’s entire work and personal history and matching it with known exposures from previous claims. The companies often object to being named and ask to be dismissed, but unless they can prove it would have been impossible for their product to have exposed the victim to asbestos, those requests are denied.
Shipyard Worker’s Mesothelioma Claim Names Multiple Defendants from the Site
The mesothelioma lawsuit filed by Felton Robichaux’s family named multiple companies whose asbestos-contaminated products were found throughout the shipyard where he worked. Included were Uniroyal, whose asbestos cloth was regularly used by insulators in the yard, and Foster Wheeler, whose boilers were installed on the ships that he’d worked on.
Both companies filed petitions for summary judgment, asking the judge hearing the claim to dismiss the cases against them. Uniroyal argued that the mesothelioma victim’s family couldn’t show that he had been exposed to asbestos through its products, or that if he had been, it wouldn’t have been enough to have sickened him. Foster Wheeler also said there was no proof their boilers were present on the ships Mr. Robichaux had worked on, and that the boilers installed on ships had been supplied without asbestos-contaminated exterior insulation.
Asbestos Companies’ Arguments Fail in Mesothelioma Hearing
In response to the arguments presented by the asbestos companies, the mesothelioma victim’s survivors presented evidence that discounted their assertions. They presented testimony from former shipyard employees who said that they had seen and worked with the Uniroyal branding, as well as testimony from a Uniroyal representative who testified that cutting the cloth would release asbestos. In response to Foster Wheeler’s argument, a former Avondale boilermaker testified that though the boilers did not have their exterior installation installed, the company had sent them with kits that included the asbestos-contaminated exterior insulation.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the judge hearing the case noted that there were facts to be determined by a jury and agreed that both should move on to trial. He denied both companies’ petitions.
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
