This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Toxic Tort
Asbestos Exposure

Pacific Bell Telephone Company v. Lyles Diversified Inc.

Published: Aug. 5, 2006 | Result Date: May 24, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 05438360 Verdict –  $150,023

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Marvin K. Anderson

Gerard J. Donnellan
(AT&T Services Inc.)


Defendant

Fred M. Blum
(Edlin Gallagher Huie Blum LLP)

Julie Jardine


Experts

Plaintiff

Joel Cohen
(technical)

Facts

Raymond Velasquez' father worked for defendant Lyles Diversified Inc., an independent contractor. In the past, Velasquez' father brought home asbestos dust, which caused Velasquez to develop mesothelioma. Velasquez sued plaintiff Pacific Bell Telephone Co. after his father placed pipe containing asbestos in the ground on plaintiff's projects. Velasquez and plaintiff reached a settlement. The plaintiff sued the defendant for contractual indemnification of the settlement and the costs it incurred in its defense against Velasquez.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed in regard to legal actions stemming from the plaintiff's agreement with defendant, defendant has a duty to indemnify and pay for the cost of defense. An industrial hygienist opined that asbestos causes mesothelioma and cancer, but that the plaintiff was unaware of the dangers caused by asbestos-containing pipes.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff was liable in the original lawsuit. The plaintiff required the use of the asbestos-containing pipes and also supplied it. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was aware that it was providing the asbestos-containing pipes, which allowed the company to save the contractor's mark-up. Therefore, the defendant should not be held liable.

Damages

According to defendant, the plaintiff claimed over $1.4 million to cover the costs of its defense in the Velasquez lawsuit and what it paid pursuant to the settlement.

Result

The jury concluded that defendant was not required to indemnify the plaintiff for what it paid in the settlement, as plaintiff decided which pipes to use. In regard to the costs of defense, the plaintiff was awarded $150,023.

Deliberation

two hours

Poll

12-0

Length

two weeks


#92660

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390