The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a $ 16 million jury award to the family of a maintenance worker at a polyester fiber factory who died after years of asbestos exposure.
In 1965, Hystron Fibers Inc., owned by the defendant CNA Holdings, hired Daniel Construction Co. to build a plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina. When the plant opened in 1967, Hystron hired Daniel to provide all maintenance and repair workers at the plant, pay an annual fee, and reimburse the contractor for certain costs, including premiums for workers’ compensation, as documented in Keene v. CNA Holdings, LLC filed in Colombia.
Dennis Seay was employed by Daniel and worked in various maintenance and repair positions at the plant from 1971 to 1980. Mr. Seay’s daily duties included maintaining and repairing pumps, valves, condensers, and other equipment in the plant’s pipeline network that exposed him to asbestos. He eventually developed lung problems that were later diagnosed as mesothelioma, a cancer caused by inhaling asbestos fibers.
Mr Seay and his wife sued CNA Holdings – the company’s successor to the plant owner – alleging that Hoechst acted negligently in using asbestos and failing to warn of its dangers.
After Mr. Seay died of mesothelioma, his daughter, Angie Keene, took over the lawsuit as the personal representative of his estate. Ms. Keene amended the lawsuit to add causes of survival and unlawful death.
Throughout the litigation, CNA Holdings argued that Mr. Seay was a legal employee and that the State Employee Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy for his claims. The district court objected and denied CNA Holdings’ motion for a summary judgment.
A Spartanburg County jury awarded Mr. Seay’s estate $ 14 million in actual damages and $ 2 million in punitive damages. A court denied CNA’s request for a summary judgment, and an appeals court ruled that Mr. Seay was not an employee.
The South Carolina Supreme Court also ruled that Mr. Seay was not a legal employee of the owner of the plant and found that Daniel Construction was providing compensation for Mr. Seay.
The Supreme Court added that the state’s guidelines on statutory employees “are certainly not served by granting CNA Holdings immunity for their illegal conduct”.
Comments are closed.