The jury in Phase 2 of the Bankhead v. Allied Packing asbestos trial in Oakland on Thursday awarded $13.5M in punitive damages against two defendants, ArvinMeritor and Pneumo Abex, in addition to the jury’s previous compensatory damage award of approximately $4M in Phase 1 of the trial.

In their Phase 2 closing arguments, the plaintiff and defense attorneys disagreed sharply over whether the defendants were financially healthy companies or whether any good would be accomplished by adding punitive damages to the compensatory damages already awarded.

With respect to Pneumo Abex, plaintiff attorney Joe Satterley suggested that $15M would be an appropriate punitive damages award. Pneumo Abex had transferred all its assets for $207M plus an agreement to cover the liabilities, which was the reason why it was no longer operating. It would be unfair to Mr. Bankhead, said Mr. Satterley, to refrain from punishing them because they had transferred their assets in a “shell game.”

“We’re not trying to kill ArvinMeritor,” said Mr. Satterley. “We’re not trying to do what you determined that they did to him. We’re merely trying to set an example of what not to do, and try to give the corporate executives notice of what happened, so they can really acknowledge that what they did was wrong.”

Mr. Satterley suggested that the jury should award $8M against ArvinMeritor, which would be one-third of their CEO’s severence payment if he were fired. “Corporations and individuals are to be treated equally under the law. But they’re different. Gordon Bankhead, his blood is red. But these corporations, the only way to get to them is through their green blood. Corporations bleed green. Now I wish it weren’t the case, I wish it weren’t the only way to get corporations’ attention sometimes is to take their money. To discourage them, to deter,” to make sure the decision-makers focus on the importance of individual safety.

By a 9-3 vote, the jury awarded $4.5M in punitive damages against ArvinMeritor, and $9M in punitive damages against Pneumo Abex. The jury had previously awarded approximately $4M in compensatory damages, for a total damage award in excess of $17M.

CVN webcast Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor and Pneumo Abex live, gavel-to-gavel.

The Bankhead v. Allied Supply asbestos mesothelioma trial returned to session Wednesday to consider awarding punitive damage against Pneumo Abex and ArvinMeritor.

In his opening statement, Joe Satterley of Sales & Satterley reminded the jury that Gordon Bankhead was going to die of mesothelioma, and that the reasonable relationship between the harm to Mr. Bankhead and the behavior of the defendants would guide their consideration of a punitive damages award, and not just an assessment of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the defendant corporations might be worth.

In his opening statement on behalf of Pneumo Abex, John Brydon of Brydon Hugo & Parker told the jury that Pneumo Abex stopped making asbestos brakes in 1987, almost a quarter century ago, and in 1994 stopped making brakes altogether. Today, Pneumo Abex makes no products, and is a non-operating subsidiary that only exists to respond to and satisfy damage claims through indemnification agreements, and as an entity itself has no financial worth.

In his opening statement on behalf of ArvinMeritor, McKenna Long’s John Berfield told the jury that they would hear undisputed evidence that ArvinMerritor has been “weathering a period of financial challenge,” and disagreed with Mr. Satterley’s suggestion that Arvin Merritor had hundreds of millions of dollars to pay an award. Last year, said Mr. Berfield, was the first year in the past five that ArvinMeritor had made a profit.

Forensic economist expert witness Robert Johnson explained to the jury that businesses can lose money for years and still be financially viable, like Boeing, and that even very successful companies sometimes do not pay dividends, like Apple or Google.

Watch CVN’s complete live coverage of the Gordon Bankhead v. Allied Packing mesothelioma trial.

A Los Angeles jury has awarded $8.8M in compensatory damages and $200M in punitive damages in Evans v. A.W. Chesterton, an asbestos trial against defendants CertainTeed and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP).

Fault was allocated 70% to CertainTeed and 30% to DWP, but the punitive damage award was only against CertainTeed.

Rhoda Evans contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers that entered Evans’ home on the clothing of her husband Bobby, who cut asbestos pipes for DWP for twenty years.

The 12-person jury heard closing arguments on April 26, 2010. 

In closing, plaintiff attorney Bill Levin argued that “CertainTeed is responsible because they sold a product containing a carcinogen without a warning. They absolutely knew that safer alternatives were available…There’s a big difference between a corporation that makes a product and 100% knows that there’s a deadly carcinogen — the worst deadly carcinogen, crocidolite — a company that knows that, and sells it anyway — a big difference between that and a water district that’s just trying to supply water service to a community.”

Los Angeles City Attorney for DWP, Will Pirkey, argued that the DWP “didn’t believe there was a risk to installers because that’s what the manual said…There are line drawings of a worker who is using the various methods of cutting the pipe or handling the pipe. In each and every drawing…there’s no mask. There’s no special clothing of any kind. There’s no gloves, no goggles, no hat. There’s nothing..We did comply with those work manuals…In 1971, the manual came out again, what did it say? Use an electric power saw. It’s ok. 1974, another manual comes out, what does it say? Use an electric power saw…We were never told that if you use a power saw, be it electric or be it gas, that there was going to result in unacceptable levels of exposure to asbestos.” 

According to CertainTeed attorney William Sayers, “with manual tools, you get zero exposure levels…[DWP] knew generally about the hazards, they knew not to use the gas powered saw…and the next year DWP started doing it. That’s the evidence in this case…They were cutting safely until 1978.”

CVN is webcasting the Evans mesothelioma asbestos trial gavel-to-gavel.

Evans v. A.W. Chesterton, an asbestos mesothelioma case involving CertainTeed and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP), is being heard before Hon. Judge Conrad Aragon in Los Angeles.

Rhoda Evans allegedly was exposed to asbestos, which resulted in mesothelioma, when she washed her husband’s clothes. Her husband cut asbestos concrete pipes every day for the Los Angeles DWP, and as a result of this occupational exposure allegedly brought home asbestos dust and microscopic asbestos fibers on his clothes at the end of every work day for 20 years, starting in 1973.

Acccording to the plaintiff, the DWP did not know about the risk from asbestos, but the pipe supplier, CertainTeed, did know of the risk, but concealed that risk from the DWP to protect $40M in annual asbestos cement pipe revenue that would be lost if the DWP switched to safer, non-asbestos containing pipes.

The defense argued that the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was idiopathic, and that CertainTeed acted responsibly, and took steps to minimize exposure by providing safety manuals to DWP, and that it was DWP that failed to ensure the safety of its employees.

A month before the trial, the plaintiff and the DWP reached a settlement, with the amounts due contingent upon the percent of fault the jury allocated to DWP, if any, including a minimum and maximum amount that DWP would pay.

CVN is providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Evans v. A.W. Chesterton asbestos trial.

CVN is pleased to announce our new Toxic Torts Video Collection, featuring 30 cases (see list below). Among the subjects covered are:

 

 

 

 

Judge Charles F. Kahn, Jr., informs the jury that the presentation of evidence will be completed today, and then closing arguments will begin this afternoon, in Kuhnke v Alfa Laval. 

 CVN is covering this asbestos-mesothelioma trial live. 

UPDATE 1: Judge Kahn is instructing the jury prior to opening arguments.  UPDATE 2: The case settled during closing arguments.

CVN is pleased to announce that our Asbestos Litigation Library now includes five trials: Roth v. Goodrich, Thacker v. 3M, Miller v. AW Chesterton, Rich v. Bingham, and Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval.

These five trials bring to practitioners a broad range of asbestos litigation issues, including:

• - Vocational and non-vocational exposure
• - High-level and low-level exposure
• - Lung cancer and mesothelioma
• - Pleural mesothelioma and testicular mesothelioma
• - Many different fiber types

The plaintiff-mail carrier’s mesothelioma allegedly resulted not from vocational exposure, but from exposure to joint compounds in home improvement products that he allegedly purchased from hardware stores in the 1960′s and 1970′s to repair a recurring crack in the walls of his home.

According to the plaintiff, sanding the joint compound created fine asbestos dust that got into the plaintiff’s lungs, and the defense expert witness could only find a different type of asbestos was involved by violating his own methodology.

Defendants, which include R.T. Vanderbilt, Kaiser Gypsum, and Union Carbide, alleged that the plaintiff’s exposure to these products was not sufficient to cause his current cancer, and that some products were not sold at the stores where the plaintiff claims to have bought them.  In addition, the types of asbestos found in the plaintiff’s lung tissue allegedly did not closely match the fiber types used in the products the plaintiff allegedly used.

The jury returned a defense verdict, finding neither negligence nor the the delivery of a defective product by any of the defendants that was the legal cause of Fred Rich’s illness. The case was tried in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Judge Patti Henning.

 

Miller v. AW Chesterton

Testicular mesothelioma jury trial based on occupational asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff was born in 1930.  Starting in 1954, he spent 33 years working for the Lindmore Irrigation District maintaining pipes, including replacing concrete pipes with asbestos-cement transite pipes, which mostly were manufactured by Johns-Mansville in Stockton, and mostly relied upon chrysotile asbestos from Advocate Mines and Calaveras Asbestos.

He was diagnosed in February, 2009, as terminally ill from malignant mesothelioma in the tunica vaginalis testes, which had spread to a lymph node.

According to Advocate Mines, tunica vaginalis testes mesothelioma is a classic idiopathic ailment.  With only 100 cases in the world, there is not enough epidemiological evidence to establish that asbestos causes it.  In addition, the defense asserted that chysotile fibers were the least harmful type of asbestos fiber, and did not cause the plaintiff’s disease.

According to Calaveras, its products came with warnings.  Further, Calaveras claimed that its products were not dangerous unless used in such a way as to create dust, and it could not monitor how the product was eventually used.

 

The case was tried in Los Angeles, California, before Judge Terry Green. The parties settled while the jury was deliberating. 

 

Roth v. Goodrich

Plaintiff’s lung was removed due to lung cancer (not mesothelioma).  Plaintiff allegedly was exposed to asbestos as a teenager in the late 1950′s while working in the auto repair business at a Shell service station, and while maintaining his own 1937 Ford.

Defendants — Dana, Ford, Honeywell, Pep Boys, and Pneumo Abex — made and/or sold automotive products (e.g., gaskets, clutches, brakes) containing asbestos, which allegedly were not tested for safety and were not accompanied by any safety warnings.

Defendants alleged that the plaintiff’s lung cancer was actually caused by second-hand smoke.

The case settled approximately one week into the trial. 

 

Thacker v. 3M

Asbestos liability jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Plaintiff Robert Thacker contracted pleural mesothelioma from asbestos exposure in the 1970s, when he worked as a pipe fitter.  The plaintiff died after the cancer spread to his spine and brain.

The remaining defendant was Weil-McLain, which manufactured boilers that contained asbestos.  Weil-McLain argued that the plaintiff never worked around a Weil-McLain boiler.  Instead, according to the defendant, the plaintiff worked only around larger industrial boilers made by a different manufacturer.

The case settled during the second day of trial.

_______________ 

The jury in the Rich v. Bingham mesothelioma trial found no liability on the part of the defendants, R.T. Vanderbilt, Kaiser Gypsum, and Union Carbide.

Fred Rich was a mail carrier whose mesothelioma allegedly resulted not from vocational exposure, but from exposure to joint compounds in home improvement products that he allegedly purchased from hardware stores in the 1960′s and 1970′s to repair a recurring crack in the wall of his home.

According to the plaintiff, sanding the joint compound created fine asbestos dust that got into the plaintiff’s lungs, and the defense expert witness, Dr. Victor Roggli, could only find a different type of asbestos was involved by violating his own methodology.

The defendants alleged that the plaintiff’s exposure to these products was not sufficient to cause his current cancer, and that some products were not sold at the stores where the plaintiff claims to have bought them.  In addition, the types of asbestos found in the plaintiff’s lung tissue allegedly did not closely match the fiber types used in the products the plaintiff allegedly used.

The jury returned a defense verdict, finding neither negligence nor the the delivery of a defective product by any of the defendants that was the legal cause of Fred Rich’s illness.

CVN provided live coverage, and you can also watch the Rich v. Bingham asbestos trial on-demand.

Opening statements began this morning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before Judge Charles Kahn in the case of Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval. General Electric (GE) is the only remaining defendant.

Mr. Kuhnke was a carpenter who spent 33 years working at power plants and switching stations. He also worked as a steamfitter on Navy ships. According to the defense, Mr. Kuhnke had many asbestos exposures other than to GE power turbines.

CVN is providing live and on-demand coverage of this mesothelioma trial.