Mesothelioma Law

The Illinois Supreme Court has affirmed a ruling by the Appellate Court in an asbestos liability case. Plaintiff Samuel Adcock, executor of Hubert Adcock Jr.'s estate, sued Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. and other manufacturers of products containing asbestos.

The plaintiff sought damages allegedly arising from the decedent's exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Counts 21 and 22 of the plaintiff's third amended complaint, the only counts directed against Owens-Corning, sought recovery for civil conspiracy. The trial court denied Owens-Corning's motion to dismiss.

Owens-Corning refused to produce two of its corporate officers as witnesses, despite a court order to do so. As a result, the trial court entered a judgment against Owens-Corning on the issue of liability as a sanction. The case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages only, and a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of $ 213,811. The appeals court affirmed.

The decedent was employed by Unarco Industries at an asbestos plant located in Bloomington. The decedent worked at the plant from 1954 through the end of 1970. In April 1970, Unarco sold the Bloomington plant to Owens-Corning. While working in the plant, the decedent allegedly was exposed to asbestos and, as a result, contracted pulmonary asbestosis and peritoneal mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. The decedent died in July 1987, and his executor filed suit in December 1987.

The plaintiff alleged that Owens-Corning entered into a conspiracy with other asbestos manufacturers to suppress information about the hazards of asbestos exposure and to assert claims about the safety of asbestos that the conspirators knew were false.

Before trial, the plaintiff served Owens-Corning with notice to produce several Owens-Corning employees as witnesses at trial. When Owens-Corning refused to produce the witnesses, the plaintiff's counsel provided oral argument showing the relationship of the witnesses to the issue in dispute. Documents introduced in support of this argument tended to show that the witnesses' testimony would show that Owens-Corning was aware of the risks associated with its asbestos products and that the company was concerned about the unfavorable consequences that would follow if these risks became widely known.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appeals and trial courts.

The high court said that the essential evidence needed to establish both the existence of a conspiracy and Owens-Corning's participation in that conspiracy was within Owens-Corning's knowledge and control.

The the plaintiff had sought to prove through the testimony of Owens-Corning executives that Owens-Corning and other asbestos manufacturers engaged in an industry-wide conspiracy to conceal and misstate the hazards associated with asbestos exposure, the court said.

By refusing to comply with the trial court's order compelling it to produce the two witnesses, Owens-Corning made a deliberate and strategic decision to suppress evidence.

Owens-Corning's misconduct, which basically amounts to an obstruction of justice, may be regarded by this court as an admission by conduct of each and every element of the plaintiff's cause of action," the court said.

In addition, the court said, after making the strategic decision that amounted to an admission of liability Owens-Corning then sought to argue in the Supreme Court that it could not be held liable because the plaintiff's complaint was factually deficient. The Supreme Court again disagreed.

Owens-Corning's blatant misconduct cannot be condoned by this court. The sanction entered against it must stand.

Mesothelioma |