Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that to avoid dismissal in an asbestos-exposure case, a plaintiff must describe the product to which a decedent was exposed and allege that a defendant had manufactured or distributed the product that allegedly led to the decedent’s illness and death.

Carole Zicklin died of mesothelioma. Her daughters, on behalf of her estate, brought a wrongful death suit against Johnson & Johnson; LTL Management, LLC; and PTI Union, LLC, in St. Louis circuit court. Johnson & Johnson removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs, who alleged strict liability, negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and conspiracy, claimed that from 1951 to the 2000s, Zicklin was exposed to asbestos-containing talcum powder products on a daily basis. The plaintiffs also alleged that during the course of their mother’s employment, she was exposed to large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products that the defendants manufactured, sold, or distributed.

PTI Union moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege that Zicklin had used a product connected to PTI Union and failed to allege causation. The defendant further argued that the claims must fail because they stem entirely from conclusory allegations that it should be liable for Zicklin’s injuries, which resulted from her use of talcum powder over a generalized and extended period of time.

Granting the motion in part, the district court found that it was apparent from the plaintiffs’ petition that their counsel had borrowed and copied allegations from another mesothelioma-asbestos case. The allegations lack sufficient details on what products Zicklin was exposed to and who manufactured them, the court said. Moreover, the court noted, there are no allegations as to where Zicklin was employed when she allegedly inhaled asbestos fibers emanating from the defendant’s products. The court found the petition unclear whether the plaintiffs are alleging that Zicklin was exposed to asbestos from daily talcum powder use or that she was exposed at work to an unidentified asbestos-containing product—or both.

Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requisite federal pleading standard. Although they need not provide detailed factual allegations, the court noted, there must be sufficient allegations to raise the right to relief above the speculative level. At a minimum, the plaintiffs must describe the type of products to which the decedent was exposed and allege that the defendant manufactured or distributed the products that led to the decedent’s illness or death.

Citation: Guthe v. Johnson & Johnson, 2024 WL 3771727 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2024).