Products Liability Law Reporter

When he was a child, George Kraemer was exposed to asbestos from the work clothes of his father, who worked as an insulator at Seattle-area shipyards during World War II. Kraemer was diagnosed as having mesothelioma, which necessitated surgeries, including a pleurectomy. Now 79, his condition is terminal.

Kraemer and his wife sued Lone Star Industries, Inc., whose predecessor, Pioneer Sand and Gravel, sold an asbestos insulation product in Seattle, alleging strict liability.

The plaintiffs did not claim lost income or past medical expenses.

The jury awarded $10 million, including $3.5 million to Kraemer’s wife.

Citation: Kraemer v. one Star Indus., Inc., No. 20-2-14616-1KNT (Tex. Super. Ct. King Cty. Nov. 8, 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Vanessa Firnhaber Oslund and Erica Bergman, both of Seattle.

Plaintiff expert: Stephen Haber, pulmonology, Houston.

Defense expert: Christopher Herfel, naval history, Hanover, Md.

Comment: In Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 2022 WL 767841 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2022), Marsha Roussell was diagnosed as having malignant mesothelioma. She sued ViacomCBS, Inc., formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corp., alleging her illness resulted from secondhand exposure to asbestos from her father and uncle, who were allegedly exposed on the job. Westinghouse moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had presented no evidence that her father and uncle had worked with or around Westinghouse products. Granting the motion, the district court found that to prevail in an asbestos case under Louisiana law, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that exposure to asbestos from a defendant’s product was the substantial cause of injury. Here, the court said, there is no direct evidence that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos dust attributable to Westinghouse. Moreover, the court found that the plaintiff had not presented circumstantial evidence creating a fact issue as to exposure. In addition to a lack of evidence regarding exposure, the plaintiff failed to present evidence that her purported exposures were the substantial cause of her mesothelioma. Consequently, the court held summary judgment for Westinghouse was warranted.