Products Liability Law Reporter

From approximately 1964 to 1980, Kevan Holdsworth worked at the Crown-Zellerbach paper mill in Camas, Wash. For six years, he worked on the mill’s paper machine clean-up crew, which required him to clean the paper machines, including their asbestos-containing Scapa Waycross dryer felts. He also was required to get inside the machines’ hood enclosures and blow off the dryer felts using compressed air. Approximately two to three times per month, he was required to cut used dryer felts.

At age 73, Holdsworth was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. Despite chemotherapy, he died of his illness within 11 months. Holdsworth, who incurred $674,000 in medical expenses, is survived by his wife.

Holdsworth’s wife, individually and on behalf of his estate, sued Scapa Waycross, Inc., which manufactured the dryer felts and sold them to the paper mill, alleging negligence and strict liability claims for failure to warn and defective design. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant never tested its products for asbestos release, investigated potential asbestos hazards associated with its products, issued any asbestos-related warning, or labeled its products as containing asbestos.

The jury awarded $16.67 million.

Citation: Holdsworth v. 3M Co., No. 19-2-10101-6 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. June 15, 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Thomas J. Breen and Lucas W.H. Garrett, both of Seattle.

Comment: In Klick v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 2021 WL 2982195 (D.N.J. July 15, 2021), Paul Klick was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He and his spouse sued Pneumo Abex LLC, the successor in interest to Abex Corp., alleging that Klick was exposed to asbestos-containing brakes while working on aircraft in Maine while serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1967 to 1971. The plaintiffs filed suit in New Jersey state court, but the action was removed to a New Jersey federal court based on federal officer jurisdiction. The defense moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Denying the motion, the district court noted that specific jurisdiction allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where the defendant had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, the litigation arose out of or is related to at least one of the contacts, and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. Citing case law, the court added that once a plaintiff has demonstrated minimum contacts, a defendant must show that the assertion of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Applying these principles here, the court found that the defendant had not offered any evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ claim that work related to the products at issue in the case occurred at the defendant’s New Jersey facility. The court therefore declined to make a finding regarding personal jurisdiction but instead ordered limited jurisdictional discovery regarding the defendant’s New Jersey facility and whether any of the products Klick was exposed to had been developed there. Cody Greenes and Erin Boyle, both of Cherry Hill, N.J., represented the plaintiffs.