Page Updated October 14, 2022

Judge Chafes at Asbestos Company’s Objections to Mesothelioma Claims Language

Page Reviewed and Edited by

Mesothelioma Attorney Paul Danziger

When Honeywell International’s attorney complained about mesothelioma claims being paid too easily by its own asbestos bankruptcy trust, a Pennsylvania bankruptcy judge pushed back hard. At issue was the language that the trust’s administrators were deeming acceptable on victims’ claims.

Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts Are Set Up to Make the Mesothelioma Claims Process Easier

Asbestos bankruptcy trusts offer an alternative path to compensation for mesothelioma victims and others sickened by asbestos exposure. The companies that exposed workers and others to asbestos were required to create these funds as a condition of the bankruptcy protection that they received for these workers. Those funds hold over $30 billion for current and future claimants, who can file claims detailing their exposure and illness and be provided with compensation.

Asbestos trusts pay mesothelioma victims less than a jury would award if they were to find an asbestos company guilty, but the route to compensation is faster and far less stressful. It is that ease that Honeywell International’s attorney found objectionable and complained to the bankruptcy court about.

Judge Unsatisfied by Asbestos Company’s Objections to Mesothelioma Claims

Honeywell’s attorney Greg Primis complained that the asbestos trust set up for its subsidiary North American Refractories Company was using “formulaic allegations of exposure” to pay mesothelioma claims and that the funds were being disbursed too easily. He said that the “check the box” affidavits were not detailed enough to warrant compensation. But Pennsylvania bankruptcy judge Thomas Agresti pushed back, asking how many different ways such a claim could be worded.

When Mr. Primis referred to the language in 81 separate mesothelioma claims “rubber stamped”, Judge Agresti objected, saying, “How many other ways can you say it? They’re saying the same thing. Maybe 81 people over the country have the same exposure experience. How many different ways can you say it?” Though the attorney persisted and said that using the same language made it hard to believe that the claims were true, the judge rejected his argument, saying, “You say just because there’s some commonality, you can’t believe the affiant? It seems like we’re dancing around the same thimble. I just wanted to hear what you thought, but frankly you didn’t clear me up on that.”

The argument makes clear how far an asbestos company will go to fight mesothelioma victims getting the compensation that they deserve, and how important it is for those victims to have the legal system and strong advocates working on their behalf.