Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jarred Conforte secured a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of the firm’s client, a small, family-owned business, in a complex mesothelioma case.
The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, alleged that the wife developed mesothelioma from “take-home” asbestos exposure, claiming that the wife’s sisters brought asbestos dust home from their jobs in the 1960s sewing burlap bags. The plaintiffs further argued that the burlap bags were contaminated with asbestos and that GRSM’s client was the successor-in-interest to the operations of the warehouse where the bags were made. The complaint included claims for product liability, premises liability, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
After a disputed issue with service of process led to a default judgment, the parties agreed to set it aside, allowing the defendant to defend the case on its merits. During the course of litigation, GRSM’s defense team responded to extensive written discovery requests, defended the client’s corporate representative in a lengthy deposition, and conducted expert discovery to challenge the plaintiffs’ theories. The GRSM team successfully moved to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert testimony, effectively limiting their ability to support the “take-home” exposure theory.
This pretrial motion paved the way for a dismissal with prejudice on the day of trial, permanently barring any future claims against the defendant. In addition to the dismissal with prejudice, the court confirmed that the plaintiffs were barred from pursuing claims against any related entities, mitigating the risk of incurring costs and shielding related businesses from any further liability exposure.
This successful resolution highlights the strength of GRSM’s Product Liability and Environmental & Toxic Tort practices, as well as the firm’s ability to navigate complex litigation, particularly in cases involving asbestos exposure claims. The team would like to extend their gratitude to Partner John Katerndahl for his invaluable contributions during the discovery phase, which were crucial to the court’s decision to limit the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts.