OLYMPIA, Wash. (Legal Newsline) – The Washington Supreme Court has rejected claims that an $81 million asbestos verdict was too high, ruling for the plaintiffs in a closely watched case.
The court’s July 8 opinion overturned the state’s Court of Appeals, which had ruled that an $81.5 million verdict in the mesothelioma lawsuit of the late Jerry Coogan was so excessive that it shocked the conscience.
Asbestos lawyers at Weinstein Caggiano in Seattle and Dean Omar in Dallas urged the Supreme Court to reinstate the jury’s verdict, as did the state’s plaintiffs lawyer group. The Washington Defense Trial Lawyers submitted an amicus brief on behalf of defendants Genuine Parts Company and NAPA.
“While appellate review serves an essential purpose in safeguarding the integrity of the jury process, it must remain limited,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote. “Here, the Court of Appeals overstepped its limited role and inappropriately substituted its own judgment for that of the trial court and, most importantly, the jury.”
Coogan was an auto mechanic who bought brakes, clutches and other asbestos-containing parts distributed by GPC at NAPA stores. In 2015, he contracted mesothelioma, quickly fell into a state of poor health and died at 67 years old – six months after he first sought medical attention.
His widow, daughters and estate sued several companies over his death, but only GPC and NAPA remained for trial. It took 12 weeks before the jury dished out $30 million for his pain and suffering, $30 million to his wife for loss of consortium, $20 million to his daughters for their loss of consortium and $1.5 million for loss of services.
The Court of Appeals ruled the trial judge incorrectly excluded one of the defendants’ experts who would testify that Coogan had a history of heavy alcohol use. The testimony would also claim he possibly had advanced cirrhosis at the time of his death that would have limited his life expectancy to only five more years.
The verdict was based in part on actuarial evidence that Coogan would have likely lived another 15 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability verdict against GPC and NAPA but ordered a new trial on damages that would have featured the defendants’ expert’s testimony.
“Dr. Schuster’s opinion that Coogan had only five years to live absent mesothelioma was based entirely on death rate statistics for stage 3 cirrhosis patients,” Justice Stephens wrote.
“But Dr. Schuster admitted he could not say if any of Coogan’s ascites – ‘the definition of stage 3’ – were caused by cirrhosis. Accordingly, there is no basis for the opinion that Coogan’s life expectancy was only five years.”
Stephens also wrote that nothing in the record suggests the massive verdict was the result of passion or prejudice.
“The size of the verdict alone cannot be proof that it was based on passion, prejudice or any other improper consideration,” she wrote. “That is particularly true where the verdict is supported by substantial evidence in the record but is challenged for being shockingly large.”
Defendants failed to point to any “untoward incidents” that inflamed the jury, Stephens wrote.
(C)ompounding layers of deference effectively limit the ability of an appellate court to overturn a verdict supported by substantial evidence to one scenario: when the only reasonable view is that something other than the evidence at trial unmistakably caused the jury’s verdict,” Stephens wrote.
“More intrusive appellate review risks encroaching on the jury’s prerogative to weigh the evidence and decide the facts, including the award of damages.”