$3,050,000: Pleural Mesothelioma Settlement for an Iowa Molding and Assembly Worker

In 2023, the family of an Iowa molding and assembly worker contacted The Lyon Firm after their mother received a diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer caused almost exclusively by asbestos exposure.

Joseph Lyon responded immediately, interviewing the worker and her family, and members of the firm met with her the following week. As the disease accelerated, the firm made several further visits. The worker passed away only months after her diagnosis, surrounded by family and friends.

After investigating the work history, The Lyon Firm identified the responsible defendants from historical records and prior asbestos litigation and filed a lawsuit in Madison County, Illinois, with Illinois-based co-counsel. The complaint named fifty-three defendants, including the manufacturers, distributors, marketers, and installers of the raw asbestos and the asbestos-containing products likely present in her work environment.

Over roughly three years, the case was litigated and resolved in settlements with eighteen of the named defendants. Claims against a defendant in bankruptcy remain pending and are expected to produce additional recovery.

The lawsuit alleged that the worker was exposed to asbestos over two decades of molding and assembly work. From 1955 through 1975, she held molding and assembly jobs, including work as a laborer manufacturing electrical component parts. According to the complaint, her exposure came from several sources:

• Raw materials: In the pre-form department, asbestos-laden phenolic powder was compressed into pucks before a high-heat molding process.
• Molded products: The components that contained asbestos included the outer casings of industrial breakers, arc chutes, contactors, and motor starters.
• Work station dust: Sandblasting machines used to strip excess plastic released high concentrations of asbestos dust, and air hoses used to clear remaining dust created additional clouds, leading to inhalation and skin contact.
• Take-home and home exposure: Asbestos dust came home on her clothing, and she encountered asbestos again during personal automotive work on brakes, clutches, and engine gaskets and home remodeling involving insulation, drywall, and tile.

The complaint alleged that many of these companies knew, or should have known, that asbestos was dangerous and failed to take basic steps to protect workers. The failures it alleged included:

• Designing and distributing a defective product
• Failing to design products with known safer alternatives
• Failing to warn site owners and workers about asbestos risks
• Failing to warn families about take-home exposure
• Failing to instruct workers on the use of protective equipment
• Ignoring known science and safety standards
• Continuing to sell and distribute asbestos after its dangers were widely understood

The case weighed the comparative liability of more than fifty defendants across many years and work environments. Each defendant owed its own duties, and the degree of exposure linked to any one company's product could vary widely, which raised difficult questions of causation and comparative fault. The defendants included:

• Product manufacturers, which allegedly made or sold asbestos-containing materials and, according to the complaint, failed to properly test, label, or warn about the hazards while continuing to sell the products that reached the worker.
• Contractors, who worked at industrial sites and, the lawsuit claimed, may have created unsafe conditions by using asbestos materials without protecting workers.

The litigation resolved in settlements with the named defendants for a collective amount of more than $3,050,000, paid to the estate of the decedent worker over the course of three years, with additional payments anticipated. That compensation accounted for:

1. Medical expenses and care;
2. Pain and suffering before death;
3. Loss of companionship and support;
4. Funeral and burial costs;
5. Other financial and emotional losses.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication that any defendant violated any law. It represents a resolution of disputed claims. Settlement results depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and past results are not a guarantee or prediction of the result of any other case.