Page Updated January 1, 2026

Asbestos Companies Blame Each Other After Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Page Reviewed and Edited by

Mesothelioma Attorney Paul Danziger

Most mesothelioma lawsuits name multiple defendants that have been involved in the asbestos supply chain, and the case filed by Ted Matherne and his family is no exception. When their wrongful death claim named Westinghouse Electric Corporation and its customer Hopeman Brothers, the two turned on each other, with one asking to be dropped from litigation and the other opposing the action.

Second-Hand Asbestos Exposure Blamed for Wife’s Mesothelioma

Though it’s not common for asbestos companies facing mesothelioma liability to lay blame on one another, it’s not unheard of either. In the case filed by the Matherne family, the issue surrounding Mrs. Matherne’s second-hand exposure to asbestos carried home on her husband’s work clothes. The asbestos came from a product called Micarta, which was manufactured by Westinghouse Electric Corporation and then sold to Hopeman Brothers.

Hopeman Brothers supplied the deadly product to the Avondale Shipyard where Mr. Matherne worked. Though the lawsuit named pointed to both companies as being liable, Westinghouse petitioned to be dropped from the claim, arguing that Hopeman was a “sophisticated user” and required no warning that asbestos-contaminated products were dangerous. The victim’s family and the contractor both objected to the request.

Judge Denies Asbestos Company’s Request in Mesothelioma Claim

In support of their argument, Westinghouse presented a memo from a former Hopeman executive that questioned the use of the product, asserting that the man had known that it contained asbestos and posed a risk of mesothelioma. But Hopeman’s attorneys countered this argument by saying that the man was not a sophisticated user; that he had only been in his early 20s, had not been fully aware of the implications or dangers, and that his fears had been discounted by a representative from Johns-Manville.

In ruling on the case, the judge agreed with Hopeman and the mesothelioma victim’s family that the sophisticated user argument was a fact to be decided at trial. The case will move forward for a jury to consider.

This ruling highlights a broader legal principle in asbestos litigation: manufacturers cannot automatically avoid liability by shifting blame to intermediaries in the supply chain. Courts often require juries to weigh evidence about what each defendant knew, when they knew it, and whether warnings were adequate under the circumstances. For mesothelioma victims and their families, cases like this reinforce that second-hand asbestos exposure is a legally recognized cause of disease and that multiple companies may be held accountable when their combined actions contributed to preventable harm.