A Washington state appeals court has affirmed a jury award for a widow whose husband died of mesothelioma following asbestos exposure.

The appeals court found that plaintiff Betty E., on behalf of her late husband Edwin, had presented sufficient evidence to show that Edwin had been exposed to asbestos and that asbestos from parts made by construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar had been a substantial factor in his later development of mesothelioma.

Evidence presented at trial showed that from the 1940s though the 1960s, Edwin worked in an assortment of industries that used asbestos-containing components. These jobs included service in the U.S. Navy, maintenance on heavy construction equipment, and work as a shop foreman at Glasgow Air Force Base.

In depositions taken before his death, Edwin described specific instances of having to dismantle and replace industrial parts that contained asbestos, like engine gaskets on an old Caterpillar D8 bulldozer. He described having to break the asbestos-containing parts apart, scraping them away and using compressed air to blow away the resulting dust.

Edwin was diagnosed with diffuse malignant mesothelioma in September 2010. He and his wife Betty filed their asbestos lawsuit against a long list of companies, including Caterpillar, that either manufactured or supplied the asbestos-containing parts Edwin had been exposed to earlier in life.

Edwin died of mesothelioma in February 2012. Betty then took over his asbestos lawsuit as representative of his estate while continuing to pursue her own claim for loss of consortium.

At trial, the jury awarded Betty and her children a total of about $6 million, of which Caterpillar was to be responsible for $4.5 million. Caterpillar filed a motion to vacate the jury verdict, but the court denied that motion.

On appeal, Caterpillar argued that an award of noneconomic damages that was more than ten times the award of economic damages was a result of “passion and prejudice.” The court, however, found that since there was substantial evidence in the record that supported the jury’s award, the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying that motion.

Caterpillar also appealed the court’s earlier denial of its motion for summary judgment, arguing that Betty had presented no evidence that exposure to Caterpillar products was a substantial factor in Edwin’s mesothelioma. But the appeals court noted that Betty’s expert witness had provided testimony concluding exactly that, creating an issue of material fact that made the case suitable for trial. The court noted that Washington law does not require a plaintiff to prove inhalation of asbestos fibers from a particular defendant’s product; the plaintiff only has to show they were exposed to that product.

Caterpillar also appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial, based on alleged errors by the trial court in allowing submission of certain evidence and disallowing certain other evidence. The appeals court noted that trial courts have broad discretion to control the submission of evidence and that in this case the trial court had not abused that discretion.

The court’s opinion was filed September 8, 2015 in Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals under Case No. 71429-5-I.