An asbestos suit filed by a postal worker against some asbestos removal contractors, who were responsible for an abatement project conducted at a Post Office at New Orleans in the 1980s, has been removed by the judge from Orleans Parish Dist. Court to the United States District Court in New Orleans, LA.
Mr. Louis Wilson claims that he had been exposed to toxic asbestos fibers during the abatement project carried out at the Post Office and, as a result of this exposure, he developed malignant mesothelioma. The project was carried out between 1984 and 1986, according to the suit which was filed on 7th May. Laughlin-Thyssen, Eagle, Bayercropscience and Gibbs Construction are the defendants in the case.
The case was removed to federal court on 7th March by Laughlin-Thyssen.
According to the plaintiff, during the asbestos removal project, several materials containing asbestos – such as fireproofing, pipe covering and tiles – were removed. He says asbestos fibres were emitted into the immediate vicinity during the removal process.
Wilson says Gibbs Construction, one of the defendants, was the contractor who was responsible to handle the project. Gibbs has agreed contractually to indemnify the United States Postal Service for any negligence from its side at the time of the cleanup process. Laughlin-Thyseen, another defendant, was a subcontractor who carried out the asbestos removal project.
According to the suit, the defendant companies were negligent as they allowed intermingling and contact between asbestos removal workers and the employees of USPS, as a result of which asbestos fibers became airborne and the employees were exposed to those cancer-causing fibers. Asbestos fibers were released through the building’s heating and air conditioning systems and contaminated public spaces, the suit alleges.
Eagle was responsible for the insulation work in the building, including its removal as well as testing. The lawsuit states that the employees of Eagle negligently caused asbestos dust and asbestos fibres to be dispersed into the atmosphere in the immediate area where he was working.
Amchem made and marketed the mastic that was used at the time of the original construction and insulation of the building. The plaintiff argues that asbestos was present in the mastic and the company had the legal obligation to warn its consumers regarding the hazards of exposure to the product.
The plaintiff is asking for damages for his sufferings, physical pain, mental pain, fear of death, loss of life’s enjoyments, medical expenses, and legal expenses.