Shipyard asbestos exposure during his day-to-day job as a planner for General Dynamics and Electric Boat Corporation in Groton, Conn. sparked a former employee to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff is Earnest M. and he worked in this capacity for the nineteen years between 1958 and 1977.

According to the legal documentation of the case, Earnest M.’s shipyard asbestos exposure was allegedly because the products produced by the multiple defendants “were designed to require or incorporate asbestos for use, operation, or function.”

The named defendants include the Ingersoll-Rand Company, Aurora Pump Company, Bayer CropScience Inc., BW/IP Inc., EB Badger and Sons Company, Goulds Pumps Incorporated, IMO Industries Inc., Industrial Holdings Corporation, The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, The Nash Engineering Company, Niantic Seal RIP Inc., Safeguard Scientifics Inc., Warren Pumps LLC, Weir Valves and Controls USA Inc., The WM. Powell Company, and York International Corporation.

The plaintiff’s shipyard asbestos exposure led to his diagnosis of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs specifically caused by breathing in asbestos fibers. The plaintiff has also been diagnosed with general asbestos-related lung disease.

According to the lawsuit filed on Sept. 5, 2017, Earnest M. has suffered enormously physically from the reduced function of his lungs, as well as emotionally and mentally from the grief surrounding his worsening symptoms and the likelihood of a premature death.

The plaintiff has suffered significant loss of income through his inability to work while being forced to lay out huge sums of money in pursuit of medical treatment. This situation is likely to continue for an indefinite period as the disease is permanent and, barring other co-existing maladies, result in his early demise.

Plaintiff’s Allegations in Shipyard Asbestos Exposure Lawsuit

According to the narrative in the shipyard asbestos exposure lawsuit, the plaintiff, Earnest M., accuses the named defendants of violating Connecticut product liability law in at least one of several ways.

He alleges the defendants, if not aware of the health hazards of the asbestos-containing parts needed to operate products they produced, should have been aware prior to marketing their goods.

Following that same vein, the defendants should have then advised handlers of said goods of the hazards associated with their contact, Earnest claims. A reasonable warning as to what sort of gear would best provide the best protection with handling these goods and/or changing parts that contained asbestos would have been the next conscientious step in a chain of ethical corporate behavior.

The defendants in this shipyard asbestos exposure lawsuit, according to the plaintiff, also failed to put any package warnings on the goods they produced about the hazards of the materials included. There were not any warnings, labels, or equivalents available to the eye of the handler of the goods that would arm them against the associated asbestos hazards.

Finally, the defendants also failed to publish safe handling methods or a safety plan that could be viewed by agents that would encounter their products and their asbestos-containing parts. They failed to investigate the safety of the materials used in their goods and failed to develop safer alternatives.

Earnest M. is asking for exemplary and punitive damages against the multiple defendants in this case.

The Shipyard Asbestos Lawsuit is Case No. 3:17-cv-01491-SRU in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.