Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Monday, November 4, 2024

Compressor maker liable for 60% of huge asbestos verdict despite 14 other defendants

Asbestos
Asbestos 04

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - A California appeals court upheld a jury verdict assigning 60% of the responsibility for a man’s mesothelioma to a compressor manufacturer even though the plaintiff identified 14 other defendants including the U.S. Navy that allegedly contributed to his disease.

Copeland Corp. argued it wasn’t liable at all for the illness of William Phipps, who served on a Navy ship and later worked as a heating and air conditioning repairman. The company told jurors it was unlikely Phipps inhaled any deadly asbestos fibers working on its equipment, since the gaskets he claimed was exposed to contained less dangerous chrysotile asbestos. It was far more likely Phipp’s disease was caused by exposure to the deadlier amphibole asbestos on Navy ships, Copeland said.

The jury disagreed, awarding Phipps $26.7 million and ordering Copeland to pay 60%. Copeland appealed to California’s Second Appellate District Court, arguing there wasn’t evidence to support the jury’s 60% allocation of fault and the award far exceeded damages in similar asbestos lawsuits. 

The appeals court disagreed, in a May 18 decision. Copeland continued selling asbestos gaskets after without warning customers for three years after it told its own employees to use fitted respirators in 1988, the court noted, giving the jury room to find the company especially culpable. 

The trial court was also within its authority when it failed to give enough weight to other asbestos verdicts to judge the size of the jury award, the appeals court ruled. California law governing motions for a new trial doesn’t allow appeals courts to consider such evidence, the appeals court added, because it wasn’t part of the official record.

The jury’s finding of 60% liability against Copeland was reasonable, especially since the plaintiff’s lawyer argued it should be 80%, the appeals court ruled. 

“The significantly lower-than-requested damages awards are especially significant given that counsel for Copeland did not even bother to rebut the arguments made by counsel for the Phippses,” the court concluded.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News