Posted on May 05, 2022
Callen Cortez attributes his diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma to multiple sources of asbestos exposure. In addition to his own workplace, he also claims to have been exposed at home from his brothers’ employment, as well as that of his father. When he sought compensation for his injuries, his father’s employer’s insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, attempting to escape financial liability. District Judge Sarah S. Vance denied the company’s request.
A father’s work for an insulation company is accused of malignant mesothelioma
Callen Cortez’s mesothelioma claim indicates that his father, Calise Cortez, had worked for Gabler Insulations, Inc., and that the asbestos his father brought home on his work clothes had contributed significantly to his illness. Gabler’s insurance coverage was provided by the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company (AMLICO), which was liquidated in 1989. By state law, this made the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) responsible for liability. ‘AMLICO.
LIGA argued that the mesothelioma victim’s claims against them should be dismissed, arguing that he had failed to present sufficient evidence that his father had worked with products containing asbestos or had been exposed to asbestos. products containing asbestos during his employment with Gabler, and that any home exposure he had experienced would have been negligible given the short duration of his father’s employment with the company.
The court rejects the insurer’s arguments against its liability in the diagnosis of mesothelioma
In reviewing the insurance company’s argument against Cortez’s mesothelioma liability, the judge pointed to the significant evidence that had been provided regarding Calise Cortez’s asbestos exposure. Mr. Cortez had testified that when his father came home from work each day, his clothes were covered in white insulation dust “on his clothes, on his skin, in his hair, on his boots and on his hands.” She also pointed to previous cases claiming asbestos had been present in Gabler’s products.
Regarding the insurer’s argument that even if Cortez had been exposed to asbestos from his father’s workplace, it would have been insufficient to have caused his mesothelioma, the judge indicated that the argument failed for two reasons. First, that the Louisiana Supreme Court had previously ruled that the brevity of the exposure did not warrant summary judgment, and second, that the victim’s expert witnesses had each testified that the exposure from his father’s work contributed at his risk, and that Gabler had failed to take appropriate precautions. The case will go to a jury.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, it is essential that you have the resources you need. For more information about how the patient advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help you, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
FREE mesothelioma package
Written by Terri Oppenheimer
Find out more and contact Terri
