Michigan Bell's Motion to dismiss in asbestos case to be heard Friday

Steve Gonzalez Nov. 4, 2004, 4:35am

Michigan Bell’s attorney Timothy Hayes of St. Louis will present arguments on a motion to dismiss from an asbestos class action suit when he goes before Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack on Nov. 12.

Plaintiff Patricia Roberts is seeking at least $250,000 in damages on five counts, plus punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial and all legal and court fees. She is the special administrator for her husband, Thomas Roberts, who died May 16, 2003, from pleural fibrous encasement and mesothelioma, according to his death certificate from Williamson County, Illinois.

Roberts is represented by Marcus E. Raichle of the SimmonsCooper firm of East Alton.

Michigan Bell, a subsidary of SBC headquartedered in San Antonio, Texas, will argue for dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

According to the complaint, Thomas Roberts was employed from 1957 to 1999 as an electrician at various locations throughout Illinois and other states.

Roberts claims that during the course of her husband’s employment and non-occupational work projects, such as home and automotive repairs, he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around, which were sold by at least 100 defendants named in the suit.

Roberts claims the defendants should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbing them.

As a result of the defendants' negligence, Roberts claims her husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2003.

Count 4 of Roberts five-count suit alleges that the defendants breached their duty to preserve material evidence by destroying and disposing documents and information when they should have known that information could have been used in potential litigation.

Roberts claims that the defendants had a duty to maintain documents that contained the identification of asbestos-containing products to which her husband was exposed.

03 L 987

More News