DAP’s Request for Dismissal from Lung Cancer Lawsuit Denied
Many asbestos companies are sued by victims of lung cancer and mesothelioma who blame them for negligently exposing them to their toxic products without warning them of asbestos’ health risks. Many of these cases have led to multi-million dollar compensation awards. Some companies argue that the case against them isn’t strong enough to go to trial, but there are strict rules about what’s required for these motions for summary judgment to succeed. In a recent case, DAP, Inc. argued that they shouldn’t be held responsible for a lung cancer victim’s illness, but the judge hearing the case denied their petition, allowing the case to move forward.
Navy Veteran’s Lung Cancer Blamed on Asbestos in DAP Caulk
The asbestos lung cancer lawsuit was filed by John P. Reeves after years of working with several different asbestos-containing products. Reeves was a Navy veteran, and among the companies he named in his claim was DAP, Inc., whose caulking products he said he worked with as early as 1961 when he served on the USS Forrestal. He also cited other exposures throughout his lifetime, including do-it-yourself work he did in his home during the years that DAP’s caulk contained asbestos.
In response to the claim, DAP, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, asking that the case against them be dismissed. The company’s attorneys cited several caulk products that the company had manufactured during that time that did not contain asbestos and argued that because he had no proof of which caulk he used, his claim was speculative.
Judge Denies Request for Asbestos Lung Cancer Claim to be Dismissed
Upon review of the company’s arguments against being held responsible and the evidence submitted by the asbestos lung cancer victim, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County decided in favor of Mr. Reeves. In his decision, he cited New York’s high bar for dismissal of personal injury lawsuits and noted that the company had not offered any proof that its products could not have been responsible for his lung cancer, especially in light of the specifics he had provided about the years when he had used the product and the projects he’d worked on.
In addition to the victim’s testimony, the judge’s decision was also swayed by the testimony of an expert witness who had provided information to support the victim’s assertions about the company’s caulk’s role in his illness. The case will move forward for a jury to decide.
FREE Financial Compensation Packet
- Info on law firms that will recover your HIGHEST COMPENSATION
- Learn how to get paid in 90 days
- File for your share of $30 billion in trust funds
