Turtle Wax seeks to dismiss a man’s suit alleging he developed acute mycloid leukemia from benzene exposure, arguing that the lawsuit fails to provide specific facts.

Plaintiff Matthew Eaton filed a first amended complaint on May 24 through attorney Christopher Dysart of The Dysart Law Firm PC in Chesterfield, Mo.

He filed his complaint against defendants Turtle Wax, Inc., BP Corporation North America Inc. Phillips 66 Company, Bauman Oil Distributors Inc., Carter Oil Company, 3M Company, also known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Berryman Products, B’Laster Corporation, Berwind Corporation, doing business as CRC Industries, and Safety-Kleen Systems Inc.

Eaton alleges he worked at various service stations where he conducted vehicle repairs, gasoline pumping and gasoline pump/tank maintenance. During his work, he claims he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or absorbed benzene and benzene fumes emanating from products he was working with.

Eaton also alleges he was exposed to benzene-containing products during his work using cleaners, solvents and fluids from the defendants and while doing construction work on residential windows.

As a result of his exposure, he claims he became aware that he developed acute mycloid leukemia on June 22, 2015.

He alleges the defendants should have known that benzene was toxic and adequate substitutes were available.

Turtle Wax filed a motion to dismiss on June 15 through attorneys M. Ann Hatch and Gary L. Smith of Herzog Crebs LLP in St. Louis.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff fails to identify the locations where he was allegedly exposed to benzene-containing products, including the name and area of the facility where he worked.

Turtle Wax also argues that the plaintiff fails to name specific types of benzene-containing products and fails to provide dates and frequency of the alleged exposure.

The defendant also argues that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations or repose; barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel; and is preempted by federal and state law.

Eaton seeks a judgment of more than $50,000, plus court costs and any other relief the court deems just.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-644

Want to get notified whenever we write about Madison County Circuit Court ?
Next time we write about Madison County Circuit Court, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Madison County Circuit Court

More News