Leon Solis Jr., et al. vs. 3M Company, et al

Case Background

On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff  Laura Rangel and others filed an  Asbestos Exposure Case in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Case number:20STCV41475). Judge Mary Ann Murphy presided over the case.

Cause

The case arose from Sylvia Solis’s exposure to asbestos fibers through household contact with her husband, Leon Solis Jr.’s, contaminated work clothes, tools, body, and vehicles. For years, Leon Solis Jr. worked directly with and around various asbestos-containing products and equipment. These products released respirable asbestos fibers into his work environment. Multiple defendants designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold these asbestos-containing products. Among them were 3M Company, ArvinMeritor Inc., BorgWarner Morse Tec LLC, and others.

These defendants engaged in various activities, including researching, manufacturing, fabricating, and designing asbestos products. They modified, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, and sold these items. Additionally, they inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, rebranded, packaged, and advertised asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

The defendants marketed and distributed these products despite knowing that users would not inspect them for defects or recognize the inherent hazards. They possessed knowledge of the substantial dangers associated with asbestos exposure. However, they failed to provide adequate warnings to users, consumers, workers, bystanders, and their families.

Injuries

Sylvia Solis suffered severe health complications and ultimately died due to her exposure to asbestos fibers brought home by her husband. The exposure pathway included direct and indirect contact with Leon’s contaminated work clothes, which he wore home daily. She inhaled asbestos fibers while handling his laundry, cleaning their home, and being in proximity to his contaminated tools, vehicles, and work gear. The defendants’ asbestos-containing products released dangerous fibers that adhered to Leon’s clothes and personal items, creating a hazardous environment in their home. These toxic fibers caused Sylvia to develop serious asbestos-related diseases that led to her death. The exposure occurred during routine, foreseeable household activities that the defendants should have anticipated and warned against.

Damages

The death of Sylvia Solis resulted in substantial damages for multiple family members. Her husband, Leon Solis Jr., suffered both individual damages and damages as successor-in-interest to Sylvia’s estate. Their children, Laura Rangel, Crystal Solis, and Leon Solis, experienced significant losses due to their mother’s untimely death. The family endured emotional distress, loss of companionship, medical expenses, funeral costs, and other economic hardships resulting from Sylvia’s illness and death. These damages stemmed directly from the defendants’ failure to protect against foreseeable household exposure to their asbestos products.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Laura Rangel | Crystal Solis |  Leon Solis Jr. | Leon Solis.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Andrew Seitz | Scott L. Frost

 

  • Defendant(s):3M Company aka Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company | ArvinMeritor Inc. | Baker-Ortega Inc. Doe 1 | BorgWarner Morse Tec LLC | Brake Parts Inc. LLC | Carlisle Brake & Friction Inc. | Carquest Auto Parts Inc. | Central Valley Trailer Repair Inc. | Cummins Inc. | Daimler Trucks North America LLC fka Freightliner Corporation | DCO LLC fka Dana Companies LLC | E.M. Tharp Inc. | Eaton Corporation | Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust | Genuine Parts Company | Henry Company LLC | Honeywell International Inc. | LKQ Corporation | Mack Trucks Inc. | McCord Inc. | Merced Truck & Trailer Inc. | Navistar Inc. aka International Truck & Engine fka International Harvester Inc. | PACCAR Inc. | Pneumo Abex LLC | Standard Motor Products Inc. | Terminal Air Brake Supply Company | The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California | Union Carbide Corporation | Utility Trailer Sales of Central California | Valley Friction LLC | Valley Friction Materials  | Valley Truck Wrecking Inc. Doe 3 | Wabash National Corporation
    • Counsel for Defendants: Kendra Lauren Arnold| Colleen Elizabeth Baime | Robert Harvey Berkes | Stephanie Lyn Bowlby | Madeline Leah Buty | Paul A. Calfo |  Bradford John Dejardin | Jacqueline Dubois | Salin Ebrahimian | Patrick James Foley |  Haley L. Hansen | Jeremy D. Huie |Gabriel A. Jackson | Charles William Jenkins | Deidre Cohen Katz | Viiu Spangler Khare |  Jayme C. Long | Christopher S. Marks | Florence Anne McClain | Jeremy Milbrodt | Tyler Davis Offenhauser | David R. Ongaro |Michael J. Pietrykowski | Francis Dennis Pond | Steven D. Smelser | Steven D. Smelsre | Leonard Michael Tavera

 Claims

The plaintiffs pursued multiple legal claims against the defendants in a Asbestos Exposure Case . Under strict liability, they alleged the defendants created and sold inherently defective and unsafe asbestos products that caused serious disease and death. These products failed to meet ordinary consumer safety expectations, and their risks far outweighed any benefits. The asbestos-containing products lacked adequate warnings about their dangers and failed to provide safety instructions for preventing household exposure.

The plaintiffs also pursued successor liability claims in a Asbestos Exposure Case , asserting that current corporate defendants bore responsibility as successors, parents, subsidiaries, or partial owners of the original asbestos product manufacturers and distributors. The defendants’ liability extended through various corporate relationships, mergers, acquisitions, and asset purchases connecting them to the original producers of the harmful asbestos products. The complaint emphasized the defendants’ role in the “virtual destruction” of plaintiffs’ remedies against original manufacturers through corporate restructuring and acquisitions while these defendants continued to benefit from the goodwill of their predecessor companies.

Defense

Product Identification and Causation Defense

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to specifically identify which defendant’s asbestos-containing products caused Sylvia Solis’s injuries and death. They contended that the plaintiffs could not establish a direct causal link between their individual products and Sylvia’s exposure. The defendants highlighted the presence of multiple manufacturers and suppliers in the marketplace during the relevant time period, making it impossible to attribute liability to any specific defendant without clear evidence of product identification and use.

Statute of Limitations Defense

The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs’ Asbestos Exposure Case fell outside the applicable statute of limitations period. They argued that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about the potential asbestos-related injuries well before filing the lawsuit. Information about asbestos hazards became publicly available. The time between the initial exposure and the manifestation of illness exceeded the statutory period for bringing such claims in California. Additionally, the time between the manifestation of illness and the filing of the lawsuit also exceeded this statutory period.

State of the Art Defense

The defendants maintained that they complied with all industry standards and governmental regulations in effect at the time they manufactured and distributed their products. They argued that the scientific and medical knowledge available during the relevant period did not adequately establish the dangers of secondary household exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the defendants claimed they acted reasonably based on the then-current state of scientific knowledge regarding asbestos risks.

Comparative Negligence

The defendants pointed to other potential sources of asbestos exposure in Sylvia Solis’s environment. They argued that other manufacturers, employers, or third parties bore responsibility for her exposure. Additionally, they claimed that Leon Solis Jr. failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent bringing asbestos fibers home, despite workplace safety protocols and available protective equipment.

Corporate Succession Defense

The defendants challenged the plaintiffs’ successor liability claims in an asbestos exposure case. They argued that corporate transactions and reorganizations did not transfer liability for asbestos-related claims. They maintained that asset purchases and corporate restructuring specifically excluded the assumption of asbestos liabilities. Additionally, the defendants contested the “virtual destruction” theory of successor liability. They argued that remedies remained available through bankruptcy trusts and other mechanisms.

Jury Verdict

On October 24, 2024, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs in a Asbestos Exposure Case .

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request