PHILADELPHIA - Philadelphia was 2024's fourth-most popular U.S. destination for new asbestos lawsuits with an almost 11% increase, according to new research by the firm KCIC, while plaintiff lawyers seek a new trial after a bizarre defense verdict in Pittsburgh.
Both the Philadelphia County and Allegheny County courts of common pleas saw more new cases last year than in 2023, as 267 lawsuits were filed in Philadelphia and 78 in Allegheny. Philadelphia increased 26 and Allegheny six.
Both jurisdictions trail Illinois' two longtime asbestos hotspots, Madison and St. Clair counties, plus the 317 from New York - where defendants for years have complained about unfair treatment in the New York City Asbestos Litigation program. Pittsburgh saw the 11th-most new filings.
The study tracked mesothelioma and lung cancer cases, plus talc litigation that claims products like Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder caused other cancers. A bankruptcy judge in Texas recently rejected J&J's third attempt at creating a trust to pay those claims with more than $9 billion.
The most-serious disease caused by asbestos - mesothelioma - produces the biggest payouts. Philadelphia had a slight drop of 95 to 90 year-over-year, and Allegheny went up from 28 to 36.
Lawyers suing in Pittsburgh named the second-highest number of defendants, on average, with 152 per case. Asbestos lawyers routinely name dozens of companies, most of which have no connection to the case, in a practice that has led to legislation in some states curbing that practice. Charleston, W.Va., had the highest average of defendants - 175.
Neither Pennsylvania county were among the top five for talc cases, though Allegheny did start a talc trial last year.
Johnson & Johnson won that case when jurors found Baby Powder didn't cause the mesothelioma of the late Michaeleen Lee. Confused, they still tried to award $22 million in punitive damages.
Erik Haas, the worldwide vice president of litigation for J&J, said the verdict in Pittsburgh showed the jury refused the "baseless claims of the mass tort plaintiffs' bar."
"(T)his litigation is driven (by) paid-for science fomented and financed by plaintiffs' firms - which in this instance was squarely refuted by the irrefutable evidence that plaintiff's disease was caused by exposures other than the company's talc products," he added.
The Dallas firm Dean Omar Branham, which now has a Pittsburgh office, in February asked for a new trial. It called the verdict "ambiguous and inconsistent," then blamed the trial judge for allowing an expert to offer testimony about Lee's potential asbestos exposures while teaching at Bucks County Community College.
"Contrary to Defense counsel's suggestion, the jury's answer to the punitive damages questions were not mere surplusage that could be 'ignored' simply because of the jury's answers to preceding questions," the motion for a new trial says.
"Pennsylvania law is clear and unambiguous on this issue. When a jury returns a verdict which is inconsistent on its face, the proper remedy is to either have the jury clarify its verdict or order a new trial."
J&J replied March 17, faulting Dean Omar lawyer Jessica Dean for calling the trial a "miserable process" in which she wasn't allowed time to question some witnesses. Three jurors dropped out during the trial, which featured a holiday break in December, and it took the jury only two hours to reach a verdict for J&J.
"None of that is true," lawyers for J&J wrote. "The Court was extremely patient and gave Plaintiff 70% of the trial time, allowing her to keep her case open for a week longer than originally planned. If anyone's presentation was squeezed, it was Defendants' case."
Dean Omar lost "fair and square," J&J says.
Statewide, the state Supreme Court recently gave a slight boost to asbestos lawyers by allowing clients to sue their employers for exposure. Defendants in the past claimed lawsuits against employers must come within the four-year timeframe prescribed by the Occupational Disease Act, but plaintiff lawyers pointed to the long latency period of asbestos-related illnesses, which sometimes don't develop for decades after exposure.
One of the two dissenting justices - David Wecht - said his colleagues put their own policies in place by ignoring laws passed by the legislature.
"Put simply, I believe that today's decision uses and abuses the tools of statutory interpretation to distort, rather than uncover, the legislature's true intent," he added.
Wecht, a Democrat whose dissent was joined by Republican justice Kevin Brobson, took office in 2016. That was three years after the court ruled in another asbestos case that found a 300-week time limit to file under the Workers' Compensation Act was a "de facto exclusion of coverage" for asbestos claims.
The statewide plaintiff lawyer group - the Pennsylvania Association for Justice - obviously felt differently. It filed an amicus brief that said if the ODA prevented Herold from suing his employer because his disease took too long to develop, it would cause workers to pursue "obviously futile claims in the Workers' Compensation system before pursuing a negligence claim" and that would "have disastrous practical implications."
The ruling affects cases in which plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos at work. In addition to suing the companies that made and sold those products, in Pennsylvania they can now freely sue their employer. According to KCIC, 54% of asbestos lawsuits in 2024 alleged occupational exposure.