A Kentucky man and his wife say the cigarette manufacturers he worked for in the 1950s are responsible for his current asbestos cancer.

Plaintiffs Betty and Lewis S. say Lewis developed asbestos cancer both because of asbestos exposure he suffered as both an employee and a customer of P. Lorillard Co.

The couple alleges that back in the 1950s, P. Lorillard had contracted with defendant Hollingsworth & Vose’s corporate predecessor to produce a material called Micronite, used to make the filters in P. Lorillard’s Kent cigarettes.

These Micronite filters were made with asbestos, the couple alleges. They say Hollingsworth & Vose sold Micronite filters exclusively to P. Lorillard for five years during the 1950s.

Lewis says he was an employee at P. Lorillard, now known as Lorillard Tobacco Co., while the company was making cigarettes using these allegedly asbestos-laden Micronite filters. He also says he smoked the same Kent cigarettes that contained those filters.

He and his wife Betty now claim that asbestos exposure from these two sources was the cause of Lewis’s malignant mesothelioma, finally diagnosed in October 2015.

In addition to suing Hollingsworth & Vose and Lorillard Tobacco, the couple is also suing R.J. Reynolds, who they say is the successor in interest to Lorillard Tobacco.

Two Alleged Sources for Asbestos Cancer

The couple argues that by the time the asbestos-containing products reached Lewis, they were defective and unreasonably dangerous.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants knew or should have known that designing and manufacturing asbestos into these products would cause it to be released into the air, putting both Lorillard employees and smokers of Kent cigarettes at risk for asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma and asbestos lung cancer.

A person in Lewis’s position would have been exposed both by working at the Lorillard facility and by smoking the resulting cigarettes, they say.

The couple accuses the defendants of having knowledge of the risks of contracting mesothelioma or asbestos cancer, yet “willfully concealed” that information from the public. They say the defendants went years without placing a proper warning on their asbestos-containing products.

As employers, the defendants failed to protect their employees from the risk of asbestos exposure, the plaintiffs say. As an employee, Lewis was never warned about the risks, was never offered protective clothing or other equipment and was never properly trained in how to avoid those risks, the couple says.

Their asbestos cancer lawsuit is raising claims based on legal theories of negligence, failure to warn, strict liability for defective product design and misrepresentation.

The couple also claims violation of child labor laws, since the defendants allegedly employed Lewis in an occupation injurious to his life, health, safety and welfare while he was under the age of eighteen.

Betty is also bringing a claim for loss of consortium, seeking compensation for her loss of the “societies and labors” of her husband.

The couple seeks compensation for Lewis’s lost earning capacity, past and future medical expenses, physical pain and mental suffering. They are also requesting an assessment of punitive damages against the defendants, as well as reimbursement of their costs of litigation.

The Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit is Case No. 3:16-cv-292-DJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.