For purposes of this article, the deceased mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as B.M.
In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington reversed a lower court's dismissal of a wrongful death lawsuit connected to asbestos exposure at Tesoro Alaska Company's refinery in Kenai. The court agreed with the deceased's (B.M.) estate that they had provided enough evidence to warrant the case proceeding. This ruling allows B.M.'s family to present their case, which argues that their loved one developed mesothelioma decades after working at the refinery, in front of a jury.
B.M. was diagnosed with mesothelioma over four decades after he worked at Tesoro's Kenai refinery in 1980 and 1981. At that time, he was employed by a third-party contractor and was performing welding and electrical work at the refinery. According to the testimonies presented, B.M. did a lot of work outdoors, under insulators and pipefitters who were either installing or removing insulation materials.
B.M. filed his lawsuit one month after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Sadly, he passed away two months later. His estate refiled his lawsuit, claiming that the refinery's negligence and workplace practices exposed him to the asbestos fibers that led to his illness. When a person inhales asbestos fibers, the microscopic particles can get stuck in the lining of the lungs or other internal organs. Over time, this can lead to scarring and cell damage, which may eventually lead to mesothelioma, a rare but aggressive form of cancer. Since mesothelioma can take decades to develop after initial asbestos exposure, many workers are not diagnosed until long after they have stopped working in industries where their exposure happened and their illness has advanced. Witnesses also testified that Tesoro employees regularly monitored contractors, enforced compliance with company policies, and even fired contractors who failed to follow the rules.
In response, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. According to Tesoro, B.M.'s estate had not presented adequate proof of asbestos exposure or causation. The company also claimed that it had no legal obligation to the deceased and that the claim was late since decades had passed between the exposure and the diagnosis. The lower court sided with the defendant and granted summary judgment. However, B.M.'s estate appealed, arguing that there was enough evidence to justify the case proceeding to trial.
After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court's decision. The appellate court highlighted testimony about the refinery's control of the site and that the refinery had required contractors to exhaust asbestos-containing insulation before using safer alternatives, despite existing regulations. The court also found that B.M.'s estate had provided enough evidence to show that the exposure B.M. suffered would have been enough to have caused his illness. On the issue of the statute of repose, which bars claims that are filed late, the court ruled that Alaska's exception for negligence and defective product claims applied in this case, meaning that the estate was not barred from moving forward simply because of the decades-long gap between exposure and diagnosis. The court allowed the case to be heard by a jury.
Arizona Mesothelioma Lawyers
If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced Arizona mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties to help pay for your medical treatment and to help you and your family live a more comfortable life.
