Archive for the ‘Asbestos Litigation’ Category

A couple has recently filed a lawsuit claiming they have both developed asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to the toxic substance.

Asbestos fibers are extremely hazardous when they become airborne. If inhaled, these tiny fibers are highly irritating to the soft, delicate tissue of the lungs. Beyond asbestosis, other diseases that can result from asbestos exposure include lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Pleural mesothelioma is the most common type of mesothelioma cancer. This disease, like other asbestos-related diseases, can take several decades to develop symptoms. As a result, most cases are diagnosed during the advanced stages.

A lawsuit filed on September 30 in Madison County Circuit Court concerns the plight of a couple, Michael and Madonna Sue Poninski, who say that because of Michael’s asbestos exposure, they have both developed asbestos diseases.

The suit claims Michael Poninski was diagnosed with lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses in 2007, while Madonna Sue Poninski was diagnosed with asbestosis earlier this year.

Michael Poninski worked for BNSF Railway between 1971 and 1999 as a brakeman, switchman, and conductor. It is during this time that he believes the asbestos exposure occurred.

According to the lawsuit, Michael Poninski often worked around toxic fumes and hazardous substances, including asbestos, exhaust and diesel fumes, dust, chemicals, paints, and other industrial chemicals. Madonna Sue Poninski is claiming she was exposed to asbestos in the home while she would wash her husband’s clothing after he arrived home from work.

The couple believes BNSG was negligent in allowing the exposure to occur, failed to provide a safe place to work, failed to provide protective equipment, and failed to warn employees about the dangers of working around asbestos and other toxic substances.

Both Michael and Madonna Sue Poninski claim they have suffered from physical and mental pain, disablement and loss of income, and have incurred significant medical expenses. They also state they have lost the possibility of having normal lives.

The two-count lawsuit is only asking that they be awarded at least the minimum jurisdictional amount in accordance with what the court deems as just compensation.

If you are one of the millions of Americans who own a home that contains Zonolite insulation, there is less than a month left for you to be eligible to claim Zonolite-related compensation from W.R. Grace & Company.

At the end of July, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court that has been overseeing the W.R. Grace & Company case set a bar date for claims related to Zonolite attic insulation. The cut-off date is currently set for October 31, 2008.

It’s important to note that these are property-related claims and not personal injury claims. These types of claims are related to any home-ownership costs that arise from the presence of Zonolite in your home. This can include any type of abatement or removal, and even a reduction in property value that may occur as a result of the presence of Zonolite.

Zonolite is a type of loose-fill, non-roll vermiculite insulation produced and sold by W.R. Grace & Co. The company originally gathered the vermiculite from a mine located in Libby, Montana. The mine, the vermiculite, and all the insulation sold under the brand name Zonolite is contaminated with tremolite asbestos.

Asbestos is one of the largest contributors to the development of mesothelioma, which is a rare form of cancer. Exposure to the substance occurs when asbestos-containing products become damaged or disturbed and release tiny fibers into the air. The inhalation of these fibers is what causes mesothelioma cancer.

Zonolite was sold from the 1920s up until the 1980s under several brand names, including Attic Fill, Attic Plus, Cashway Attic Insulation, Econofil, House Fill, Wickes Attic Insulation, Zonolite Insulating Fill, Sears Micro Fill, Quiselle Insulating Fill, Mica Pellets Attic Insulation, Unifil, and Ward’s Mineral Fill.

Zonolite insulation may appear as a glittery granular substance. The granules may be silvery, gold, or brown in color, and may have darkened after being present in an attic for several years. Even homes with newer insulation may still contain Zonolite, as the substance may be found underneath newer rolled insulation.

If you are entitled to claim compensation, it’s crucial to know that you have less than a month remaining to make a claim. Even if you don’t currently plan to remodel or sell your home, this is an important consideration. Removing Zonolite can cost between $5 and $12 per square foot, and the cost adds up very quickly when there is an entire house full of the substance.

Downtown St. Louis developer Matthew E. Burghoff recently pleaded guilty in a federal court on Wednesday, October 1. He pleaded guilty to environmental charges relating to asbestos, as well as charges of bank fraud. Burghoff faces a prison sentence of up to two and a half years.

Burghoff admitted to the fraud saying he had taken out a loan to renovate a commercial building, but instead used the money to buy a home in Mexico and pay personal bills.
He also admitted to improperly removing asbestos from the Ford building in downtown St. Louis.

The Ford building is on the National Register of Historic Places and was planned to be developed into a luxury condo building with a deadline of fall 2008. However, the windows are still boarded up and the building has now been sold, according to one of Burghoff’s lawyers.

Burghoff’s problems began in 2007, when an anonymous letter tipped off the St. Louis Air Pollution Control Division that asbestos was being improperly removed from the building.

When state and federal investigators inspected the site, they found asbestos-containing debris had been left in piles throughout most of the building’s thirteen floors. The inspectors also found approximately 60 bags of asbestos waste. Such carelessness of asbestos materials causes those around the site to be exposed, which can result in serious diseases.

One illness that can be attributed to asbestos exposure is mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is typically diagnosed during the advanced stages of development. One of the most common types of the disease is pleural mesothelioma, which is formed within the tissues surrounding the lungs.

After the asbestos discoveries were made, suspicion fell upon the financing Burghoff was using for the project. The investigation subsequently found that Burghoff had taken several loans in a short period of time, including one for development of the property, and another for $237,000 to pay off personal debts. Burghoff also tried to take out another loan using false documentation to inflate his income.

For the asbestos violations and bank fraud, Burghoff faces between 24 and 30 months in prison. However, there has been mention that he may be able to reduce his sentence if he provides information about another ongoing investigation.

Two asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Madison County Circuit Court are demonstrating the tragedy of asbestos exposure in people who once worked for the United States Navy. Many Navy vessels, especially during World War II, contained large amounts of asbestos in various materials.

Those at risk of exposure are generally people who have worked with or around asbestos-containing products. This is the case of California man Arvid Johnson, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma on September 15, 2008.

According to the lawsuit filed by Arvid and May Johnson, Arvid worked in several different locations between 1947 and 2004, including the United States Navy and Ace Hardware.

The Johnsons claim Arvid’s asbestos exposure should have been anticipated and prevented by the defendants, and that the malignant mesothelioma he developed was wrongfully caused.

The four-count lawsuit asks for $100,000 or more in punitive and exemplary damages, and $5,000 in compensatory damages to compensate for mental and physical pain, lost income, and medical expenses.

Another lawsuit involves Colorado widow Frances D. Kerr, whose husband Donald passed away from lung cancer on December 28, 2006. According to the lawsuit filed by Frances Kerr on September 19, her husband’s lung cancer was wrongfully caused.

Between 1956 and 1960, Donald served in the United States Navy on several different ships, and Frances believes he was exposed to asbestos during that time.

The suit claims the defendants should have prevented the asbestos exposure. As a result of developing lung cancer, Donald Kerr suffered great physical and mental pain, loss of income, and incurred substantial medical expenses.

The four-count lawsuit asks for $105,000 or more and includes compensation of at least $50,000.

A series of lawsuits recently filed in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois once again demonstrate the far-reaching tragedy caused by asbestos exposure.

Asbestos is dangerous because any amount of exposure can cause serious diseases, including a chronic, debilitating lung condition called asbestosis. This disease reduces lung capacity and makes breathing extremely painful. Exposure to the toxic substance can also cause the development of lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a harmful cancer that most commonly affects the lining of the lungs, known as pleural mesothelioma. Other organs in the body that have the potential to contract mesothelioma include the heart and abdomen.

People who have worked with or around asbestos-containing products are especially at risk for the disease, such as in the case of Illinois man Ray Kean who was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July 23, 2007.

According to the lawsuit filed on September 19, 2008, Kean worked as a laborer between 1956 and 1970, and as a carpenter and millwright between 1970 and 1996. During the course of his employment, Kean claims he was exposed to asbestos fibers in products he was working around on a regular basis.

His lawsuit names a total of 115 defendants, including asbestos product manufacturers and other companies. The eleven-count lawsuit asks for $100,000 or more in punitive and exemplary damages, $300,000 in compensatory damages, and punitive damages as deemed appropriate by the court.

In addition to employees, family members of those working with asbestos may also be at risk. This is the case with Iowa resident Candas Frost, whose husband Greg worked with asbestos during his employment as a Navy mechanic and automobile mechanic between 1971 and 1978.

According to the lawsuit filed by Candas and Greg Frost, Candas was exposed because her husband unknowingly transported asbestos fibers home on his hair and clothing. As a result, Candas developed malignant mesothelioma, and has suffered considerable mental and physical pain. She has also suffered from medical expenses and loss of income.

The seven-count lawsuit is seeking at least $100,000 in exemplary damages and $150,000 in compensatory damages. The couple is also asking for punitive damages and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Two women have recently filed asbestos-related lawsuits in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois. One was filed on the behalf of a deceased husband, and the other was filed due to asbestos exposure.

The first lawsuit concerns Illinois resident Lorena Gilmore, who filed the suit on September 22 stating her husband passed away from lung cancer. She believes his passing was wrongfully caused by asbestos exposure.

The lawsuit states Franklin Gilmore was diagnosed with lung cancer on May 23, and died from the disease on June 17. Gilmore worked as a cooper for National Distilleries in 1957, as a laborer for Crescent Forge between 1958 and 1964, and as a laborer for Caterpillar in East Peoria between 1964 and 1994.

According to the lawsuit, Gilmore was exposed to asbestos at some point during his employment through products he was working with. In addition, the lawsuit states the defendants named in the case should have anticipated and prevented the exposure he experienced.

Lorena Franklin’s eleven-count lawsuit is asking for economic damages of at least $150,000 and compensation of at least $150,000. The suit is also seeking punitive damages for the mental and physical pain suffered by her husband before his death, as well as for loss of income and other associated costs.

The second lawsuit was filed by a woman residing in Michigan. The suit, which filed on September 23, claims that Dixie Lee Kimble was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on March 21, and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that most commonly affects the lining of the lungs, which is known as pleural mesothelioma. The lining of the heart and abdominal cavity are areas that can be affected as well, but such cases are less common to occur.

Kimble’s lawsuit states she worked for Seward Luggage as a laborer in 1973, for Hush Puppies Shoe Factory in 1976, and as an assembler for Electrolux between 1978 and 2008. Kimble is claiming that the asbestos exposure she experienced came from working with or around inhalable asbestos fibers, and believes the exposure she suffered should have been prevented by the defendants.

Her ten-count lawsuit asks for punitive and exemplary damages of at least $100,000. In addition, she is seeking economic damages of at least $150,000 and compensation of at least $150,000 for mental and physical anguish, loss of employment and income, and medical expenses.

New Haven, Connecticut – The Mayor of New Haven, Connecticut is considering suing those responsible for mishandling asbestos during an abatement project, as problems created by the mishandling may mean the city cannot collect nearly $1 million in reimbursement for the work.

Mayor John M. Picard hopes to try and change the state’s mind about what costs the state is willing to reimburse, and plans to use litigation as a last resort to try and recoup the money spent on the project.

Picard plans to try all possible methods to ensure the city is reimbursed, saying, “I want the taxpayers to know that litigation is possible. I’m not going to stop until we get reimbursed one way or the other.”

The state has so far agreed to reimburse the city $955,000 for asbestos abatement completed several years ago at West Haven High School. However, the state has also said that $1.2 million of the $2.5 million spent is ineligible for reimbursement.

According to the state, costs are not reimbursable if there is no evidence of a public bid for the work, no plan review, inadequate documentation for the work, and no submitted charge orders.

The problem arises from the fact that the project to remove and replace the asbestos-containing façade of West Haven High School ended up almost twice as large as originally planned.

Partly due to those initial miscalculations over the size of the project, it was expanded without the extra paperwork which would have preserved the project’s full eligibility for reimbursement.  Some of the work was carried out to address air quality issues at the school.

Picard says he will first attempt to convince the state to reconsider what costs are eligible for reimbursement. To facilitate this, members of West Haven’t state delegation will ask the state to extend the deadline for seeking reimbursement for the work. The city has already sent last-minute documents which might make an additional $375,000 eligible for state reimbursement.

Litigation will be a last resort. At this stage Picard has declined to name any people or companies that might be named in a lawsuit.

However, Building Oversight Committee Chairman Kenneth Carney has said that litigation will target “whoever is responsible for allowing work to proceed without it going out to bid and without filling out proper paperwork to get state reimbursement.” Likely targets may include contractors who carried out the work, or individuals involved in bidding out the contracts.

A man diagnosed with mesothelioma has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois.

Raymond Hostert filed the lawsuit on July 23. Hostert says he was employed as a drill press operator, machine operator, truck driver and mechanic between 1952 and 1999 in several different locations throughout Illinois, and at some point was exposed to asbestos. He has filed suit against a total of 79 defendant companies, claiming his disease was wrongfully caused.

Among the 79 defendants are Bondex International, CBS, Chrysler, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, General Motors, Goodyear, Honeywell International, Ingersoll-Rand, International Paper, John Crane, MetLife, Monsanto, Pfizer, Philips Electronics and Trane US.

Raymond Hostert claims that at some point during his employment history, or during home or automotive repairs, he was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers being emitted by products he was working with or around. Inhalation of the fibers caused him to develop mesothelioma decades after the exposure.

According to Hostert’s lawsuit the defendants either knew or should have known of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. The suit claims that his exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.

Raymond Hostert’s lawsuit also claims the defendants continued to use asbestos in their products even though adequate substitutes for asbestos were available and could be used. The lawsuit also claims that the defendants failed to provide warnings about asbestos exposure, or any instructions on how to work safely with their asbestos-containing products to prevent exposure from occurring.

As a result, Dennett alleges, he unknowingly continued to work with and around asbestos unaware he was being exposed to a dangerous substance, and without taking any safety precautions.

Due to the alleged negligence of the named defendants, Dennett claims he developed mesothelioma as a direct result of the asbestos exposure.

Dennett is seeking damages to help pay for medical expenses, as well as compensation for physical and mental pain and suffering, lost income, and lost earning capacity. He asks for at least $400,000 in compensatory damages. In addition his lawsuit seeks punitive damages to punish the defendants for “willful, wanton, intentional and reckless” behavior.

Several months after proposing the initial fine, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has finally reached an agreement with the city of East Liverpool. The city strenuously opposed the EPA’s fine, claiming it had already paid for an improper asbestos handling incident.

The incident that sparked the fine came to light in May 2006, and involved Street Department Supervisor Earl Taylor, who hired a contractor to remove asbestos-containing pipe insulation from a city-owned building.

Around 500 linear feet of pipe insulation was removed from the building, which Taylor then buried at a clean landfill site on property that the city also owned. Several days later, then-Service Safety Director William Cowan notified the Ohio EPA about the asbestos removal and disposal due to safety concerns.

The removal and disposal of the asbestos turned out to be illegal. The asbestos removal was carried out with the knowledge or consent of the Ohio EPA, and the agency also says the removal did not adhere to necessary safety standards. In addition the asbestos that was removed was disposed of at a landfill site that was not equipped to safely handle asbestos waste.

Asbestos removal must be carried out carefully to prevent the spread of asbestos dust, which can cause asbestos-related cancers and other serious diseases if inhaled. Typical asbestos removal includes wet-removal procedures to dampen materials and prevent dust dispersing.

Disposing of asbestos safely is another important issue, as asbestos at landfill sites can present a health hazard to anyone working or visiting the site. Asbestos can only be disposed of at waste sites that are equipped to handle hazardous materials.

Several days after the incident was discovered, workers from Cardinal Environmental Services cleaned up the remaining asbestos at the removal site, and cleaned up the landfill.

The EPA subsequently proposed a fine of $30,000, which was vigorously opposed by the town. Officials said the fine should not have been so large, as the town had already cleaned up the asbestos, Taylor himself had been fined, and the town had voluntarily notified the EPA of the problems and made no efforts to cover up the asbestos mishandling incident.

Now, the city has formally agreed to pay a fine of $5,000, after meeting with the EPA several times to ask for a reduction. Around $4,000 of the money will go to the Ohio EPA, while the remaining $1,000 will be contributed to the agency’s Clean Diesel School Bus Program Fund.

West Virginia – A Colorado woman who was diagnosed with mesothelioma has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court in West Virginia.

Joann Dennett filed the lawsuit on July 23. Dennett says she was employed a number of different positions in several different locations throughout the country between 1958 and 2008, and at some point was exposed to asbestos.

Dennett was diagnosed with mesothelioma on August 12, 2007. She has filed suit against a total of 73 defendant companies, claiming her disease was wrongfully caused.

Among the 73 defendants are Bondex International, CBS, Chrysler, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, General Motors, Goodyear, Honeywell International, Ingersoll-Rand, International Paper, John Crane, MetLife, Monsanto, Pfizer, Philips Electronics and Trane US.

Joan Dennett claims that at some point during her employment history, and during home or automotive repairs, she was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers being emitted by products she was working with or around. Inhalation of the fibers caused her to develop mesothelioma decades after the exposure.

According to Dennett’s lawsuit the defendants either knew or should have known of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. The suit claims that her exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.

In addition, Joan Dennett’s lawsuit claims that the defendants continued to use asbestos in their products even though adequate substitutes for asbestos could be used. The lawsuit also claims that the defendants failed to provide warnings about asbestos exposure, or any instructions on how to work safely with their asbestos-containing products to prevent exposure from occurring.

As a result, Dennett alleges, she unknowingly continued to work with and around asbestos unaware she was being exposed to a dangerous substance, and without taking any safety precautions.

Due to the alleged negligence of the named defendants, Dennett claims she developed mesothelioma as a direct result of the asbestos exposure.

Dennett is seeking damages to help pay for mesothelioma treatment, as well as compensation for physical and mental pain and suffering, lost income, and lost earning capacity. She asks for at least $200,000 in compensatory damages. In addition her lawsuit seeks punitive damages to punish the defendants for “willful, wanton, intentional and reckless” behavior.