Asbestos News Roundup: 12.12.13 – Cigarettes & Asbestos Risk

December 12th, 2013. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Cigarettes & Asbestos Risk

It is hard to think of anything that could make cigarettes more dangerous, but back in the 1950s, certain cigarettes actually contained asbestos in their filters. Those asbestos-containing cigarettes have led to lawsuits alleging mesothelioma and asbestosis disease, either on the part of people who smoked the cigarettes or those who worked in the factory that supplied the filters. Other lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos fibers resulting in asbestosis lung disease are still pending.

According to Daily Business Review (9/19/13), Richard Delisle was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal condition linked to asbestos exposure, in 2012. He alleges that his smoking of Kent cigarettes, which reportedly used a filter that contained asbestos, contributed to his developing mesothelioma. Also included as defendants in the trial were a paper mill company where Delisle was employed and the manufacturer of the filters used in the Kent cigarettes.

A jury found the cigarette maker, Lorillard, and the maker of the filters each 22 percent responsible for Delisle’s condition, with another 16 percent fault given to the paper company. The final 40 percent was against other defendants. In all, the jury awarded Delisle $8 million, with Lorillard paying $3.52 million as a result of an indemnity agreement between Lorillard and the maker of the filter manufacturer.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Philadelphia, PA: A$2.3 million award in an asbestos mass tort case has been upheld by a trial court judge in Philadelphia. Common Pleas Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein refused to throw out the multi-million dollar verdict against Crane Co., DAP Inc., Duro Dyne Corp., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Goodyear Canada Inc., which had been reached following a jury trial in late February, the Pennsylvania record reportss.

Charlotte Vinciguerra filed her asbestos lawsuit on behalf of her late husband, Frank Vinciguerra, who died from malignant mesothelioma on November 3, 2010.

Mrs. Vinciguerra filed suit in June 2012, citing numerous companies as defendants, many of whom were dismissed pre-trial. The lawsuit alleged that Mr. Vinciguerra developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos at work as a sheet metal helper and sheet metal mechanic for E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. from 1951 to 1985. Frank Vinciguerra was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in the summer of 2010, according to court records.

Mrs. Vinciguerra alleged that E.I. DuPont failed to exercise reasonable care to protect her husband and others from the hazardous, dangerous and harmful conditions that existed at the property, according to the lawsuit.

The defendants claimed, in their attempt to get a new trial, that the trial judge allowed the plaintiff’s expert witness to testify that “each and every breath” and “every exposure” to asbestos-containing fiber was causative of Frank Vinciguerra’s injuries, in violation of precedence set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC. However, Judge Bernstein wrote that none of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses ever offered this opinion during the course of the litigation.

During the trial, Dr. Steven Markowitz, an occupational and environmental medicine expert, testified that it was his opinion that Frank Vinciguerra’s exposure to asbestos likely caused the man’s disease.

According to court records, Markowitz explained that there is a dose-response relationship in asbestos disease, and concepts of cumulative exposure to asbestos.

Markowitz’s testimony was based upon his individual analysis of the specific factors in Vinciguerra’s condition, was offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and was “fully subject to cross-examination,” Judge Bernstein wrote. The Judge also noted that Markowitz’s testimony clearly explained “that it is the cumulative effect which causes the disease.”

The total verdict for the plaintiff is $2,286,376.44. (pennrecord.com)

Tags: Asbestos, asbestos lawsuit, Asbestos Mesothelioma, asbestos risk, Asbestos Settlement

This was posted on Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 6:32 pm and is filed under Asbestos Mesothelioma, Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Settlement . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.