Group Picture of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Justia Lawyer Rating

by

In recent years, there have been a number of sizable mesothelioma lawsuit damage awards. This has prompted oft-repeated refrains for tort reform, questions about how jurors could ever conclude such a sum was justified and lamenting that such awards drive up various costs (taxes, insurance, product prices, etc.) for the rest of us. hospitalroom

Certainly, our mesothelioma attorneys know that these damage awards sound like an awful lot. After all, how many of us ever dreamed of winning $11 million or more?

But what is often misunderstood is that these damage awards are not windfalls. They are compensation for actual irreversible harms – up to and including death. Yes, punitive damages – intended to punish defendants for egregious wrongs – are sometimes factored in. But plaintiffs have to meet a certain proof burden before they can even seek punitive damages and they are only ever awarded in the most serious of cases.  Continue reading

by

The New Jersey Supreme Court has expanded an earlier decision pertaining to “take-home toxic tort liability,” which is the assertion that companies can be responsible when their workers exposed to potentially harmful materials and take those materials home to their spouses. jeans

Now, in Schwartz v. Accuratus Corporation, justices ruled that potential liability can extend not just to the workers’ spouse, but also to roommates and unmarried romantic partners.

The ruling was issued at the behest of a federal court which is handling a case in which a woman in Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against a ceramics company where her husband and roommate were once employed. Plaintiff alleges she suffered severe illness in the form of chronic beryllium disease. It’s a condition that affects the lungs, and similar to mesothelioma, it’s caused by breathing in tiny toxic fibers and particles that are routinely found in industrial factories and other facilities.  Continue reading

by

The “every exposure” theory in asbestos litigation has been widely criticized and many judges have concluded it doesn’t pass muster in a court of law. The crux of it is that because no amount of exposure to asbestos is safe, every exposure to asbestos must be harmful. But simply showing a single exposure – or just a few exposures – to asbestos usually isn’t enough to win a personal injury or wrongful death case. gavel7

That means asbestos injury attorneys have to be prepared to introduce as much evidence as possible showing plaintiff endured a great deal of exposure. Failure to do so may result in an outcome like what was seen recently in Georgia in the case of Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc. v. Knight et al., in which the Georgia Supreme Court tossed a $4 million mesothelioma verdict, finding the use of the every exposure theory in trial was inadequate to prove defendant’s liability.

Specifically, the court ruled, plaintiff’s expert witness failed to analyze the extent of exposure in any sort of meaningful way and he also failed to qualify his opinion on causation by limiting it to such an estimate of exposure.  Continue reading

by

When we think about exposure to asbestos and the risk of mesothelioma, we might think the most at risk are those who work in the trades: The construction workers, the painters, the ship builders, the auto mechanics. openpitmine

Certainly, those groups see higher rates than others, particularly when they worked in the 50s, 60s and 70s, when asbestos was still commonplace in so many building materials and products. But as a new study has shown, the group with the highest rate of mesothelioma deaths in the world is in West Australia. Specifically, indigenous West Australians have the highest mortality rate for malignant mesothelioma in the world.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive and terminal type of cancer that develops years after exposure to asbestos fibers, breathed into the lungs and scarring the delicate tissue lining of either the lungs or stomach. In most cases, illness and diagnosis occur many years – even decades – after exposure.  Continue reading

by

A recent news feature form Reuters looks at the relatively unknown reality that asbestos is not technically illegal in the U.S.  There was an attempt to ban asbestos in the late 1970s via a regulatory action by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but the muscle of these prohibitions were removed as the legislation was overturned by action of the U.S. Supreme Court by the early 1980s.

asbestosFor this reason, small amounts of asbestos are still being used in the U.S., and these small amounts may still be deadly to those exposed. As discussed in the news feature, the number of deaths and new mesothelioma cases has not gone down, as we would have hoped, despite a major reduction in the amount of asbestos being used. In fact, they have actually increased.   One thing to understand is that not all asbestos is the same – but all can be hazardous to your health.  Continue reading

by

Some defendants in asbestos litigation, facing crippling debt in the face of accountability for concealing the danger of their products and failing to protect the public, filed for bankruptcy and established trusts to pay out current and future claims.gavel21

More than 100 companies have filed for bankruptcy protection due in whole or in part to asbestos litigation, collectively containing about $20 billion in assets – and another $12 billion in assets pending, according to an analysis by Bates White Economic Consulting. It’s important for mesothelioma attorneys to keep careful tabs on how much is contained in these trusts because it plays a role in how much will be paid out per each individual claim.

Many of the bankrupted companies – and claimants – have relied on previous insurance policies to make good on claim payments. In fact, a 2015 report by rating agency A.M. Best Co. indicated the insurance industry has paid out more than $90 million in combined asbestos and environmental losses, and there is approximately $27 billion still available to fund future payments. This heavy reliance on the insurance industry makes it imperative to follow the cases that may have an impact on claimants’ ability to collect. Recently, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently ruled in Rapid-American Corp. et al. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. et al. that providers of excess insurance to a now-bankrupt asbestos product manufacturer do not have to provide coverage unless and until the primary insurers have paid in full under those policies.  Continue reading

by

Asbestos litigation is complex. There are often more than a half dozen defendants. You’re dealing with facts and details that go back decades. Memories have faded. Records are lost. It’s a challenge to say the least. That’s why it’s imperative that you hire an asbestos injury law firm that is experienced and has a history of success on this front.gavel7

A recent case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court illustrates some of the pitfalls that can arise in asbestos litigation.

In Grant v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, plaintiff – the estate of a man who died from mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos – appealed a trial court grant of summary judgment to defendants on claims of failure to warn of defective products, unreasonably dangerous goods, negligence and loss of consortium.  Continue reading

by

A brake arcing machine manufacturer can be held accountable for toxic asbestos exposure to a mechanic, even though its product did not actually contain asbestos. sparks1

These machines were used to grind asbestos-laden brake linings in auto mechanic shops throughout the country for decades.

Defendant in the California case of Rondon v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. argued that not only did its products not contain asbestos, but its machines were not designed to be used exclusively with products that contained asbestos. There was in fact ample evidence its machines were used on non-asbestos brake pads. It was based on this the trial court dismissed. But plaintiff appealed, and now the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, has reversed, finding this “exclusive use” standard the defendant used should not have been used. The proper test was the “inevitable use” test, in which it is determined the machines would inevitably be used in a way that exposed workers to asbestos dust without adequate warning or protection.

According to court records, plaintiff developed mesothelioma after years of working as a mechanic and being exposed to asbestos dust while grinding brake linings. He alleged it was the brake arcing machines that actually released the dust into the air as he worked from 1965 to 1988. He alleged the manufacturer of these machines was liable under theories of both negligence and strict liability because, he argued, these machines had no other function than to grind these asbestos-filled brake linings.  Continue reading

by

Asbestos is a deadly substance. When a person ingests or inhales the fibers that escape into the air or a source of drinking water, they can become lodged in a layer of tissue known as the mesothelium where they can cause malignant mesothelioma.  Once the American public became fully aware of the dangers of asbestos, there was a push for Congress to outlaw the deadly substance.  By the late 1970s, a bill had made its way through congress and the mining, manufacture, and importation of asbestos was banned in the U.S.

ussupremecourt2Those in the asbestos industry fought this tooth and nail.  Even though there was not much of a market for asbestos material in the U.S., they still wanted to manufacture asbestos products and export them for use in the developing nations that did not have environmental control agencies or a large concern for public health.  In other words, since these companies could no longer make millions of dollars killing American workers and their families, they would try to make money poisoning people oversees. Continue reading

by

During much of the industrial revolution in the United States and Western Europe, companies mined asbestos and companies that processed asbestos into manufactured goods were well aware of the dangers their product was causing to tens of thousands of workers and their families each year.  There was no question about the dangers of asbestos by the early 20th century.

senateHowever, these companies not only knew that asbestos caused cancer, later named mesothelioma, but they also learned that it would take between 20 and 50 years for a person to develop symptoms of the disease and go to a doctor for a diagnosis.  Once a person is diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma or any other type of mesothelioma, they normally have less than two years to live, even with the most aggressive treatment plan available.  Continue reading

Contact Information
Boston Office
1 International Pl Unit 1810
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 777-7777Fax: (617) 722-9999
Taunton Office
60 Court St
Taunton, MA 02780
By Appointment Only
Quincy Office
308 Victory Rd
Quincy, MA 02171
By Appointment Only

Worcester Office
43 Harvard St
Worcester, MA 01609
By Appointment Only
Disclaimer – The settlements above are only a sample of cases represented by our office. Each case is different and the amount of a potential resolution of your case will vary considerably depending on a substantial amount of factors. Some case results were worked in conjunction with partnering law firms.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design