Rhode Island Woman’s Mesothelioma Blamed on Asbestos in Talc Products
In October 2023, Susan Soares of Rhode Island was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. With no history of occupational asbestos exposure, she and her husband, Brian, worked to identify the source of her illness, only to find that cosmetics and talc she had used for decades were contaminated with the toxic mineral. The couple filed suit against fifty-six defendants responsible for manufacturing, distributing, and selling the baby powder, eyeshadows, blushes, bronzers, foundation, and other products that they assert contained the asbestos-containing talc that she’d inhaled.
Defendants in Mesothelioma Case File Motions to Dismiss or Amend Case Against Them
In response to the Soares’ mesothelioma lawsuit alleging negligence, several of the companies named as defendants filed motions to be dismissed from the claim, with some asserting that the court had no jurisdiction over them based on having insufficient contacts with the state of Rhode Island, and others attempting to substitute different corporations for themselves.
While Presiding Justice Alice Bridget Gibney allowed that some of the talc companies had too tenuous a connection to the state of Rhode Island to be included in the mesothelioma claim, she also found that talc manufacturer IMI Fabi had entered into a distribution agreement with Cosmetic Specialty, Inc. that specified Rhode Island as one of the territories covered by the agreement. As a result, the company’s motion to be dismissed from the case was denied.
Johnson & Johnson Subsidiaries Request Substitution in Mesothelioma Claim
Two other defendants named in the Soares’ mesothelioma claim are LLT and Old Holdco, both subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, the consumer giant currently facing over 60,000 asbestos talc claims. The parent company and its subsidiaries requested that two other Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries be substituted as defendants in keeping with corporate restructuring, but the Soares accused the defendants of acting in bad faith, claiming that the two new subsidiaries had only been created as a strategy to avoid liability for the thousands of claims against it. They asserted that they had a right to decide who they named in their lawsuit.
Justice Gibney’s review of the motions from both sides concurred with the mesothelioma victim, pointing to Superior Court rules of civil procedure that said that plaintiffs are “the master of their complaint,” so that liability is not transferred away. The case is ongoing.
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
