Dow Chemical Asbestos Exposure: Why Your Case Might Get Complicated by Insurance Fights

If you worked as an electrician at a Dow Chemical plant or a South Louisiana shipyard, you were likely exposed to toxic asbestos for years. When victims like Sidney Mabile, Sr. file lawsuits to hold these companies accountable, the legal battle often turns into a ‘blame game’ between big corporations and their insurance companies. These technical insurance disputes can delay your compensation for years if your lawyer isn’t prepared to fight through them.

The Mabile Case: A $5.9 Million Verdict and the Aftermath

Sidney Mabile Sr. spent his career as an electrician in Louisiana shipyards and at The Dow Chemical Company plant in Plaquemine. When he developed an asbestos-related injury, he successfully held Dow accountable, eventually securing a settlement after a jury awarded nearly $6 million in damages. However, while Mr. Mabile received his justice, a new battle began: Dow filed cross-claims against its contractors and their insurers to avoid paying the bill itself.

The Case of the Iberville Parish Electrician

After working as an electrician in several shipyards and plants in south Louisiana for most of his life, Sidney J. Mabile, Sr. filed a lawsuit against The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and Westgate and its predecessor, Industrial Electrical Constructors, Inc. (IEC) for asbestos-related injuries. Following a jury trial, Sidney’s claims against Westgate and IEC were dismissed, although Dow was found to be one of three defendants liable for his damages. Dow and Sidney ultimately settled. 

Why Dow Chemical and Contractors Fight Over Insurance

While the case with Sidney was pending, Dow filed a cross-claim against Westgate and IEC (collectively Westgate). Dow argued that Westgate was under an Agreement for Services that mandated Westgate to indemnify Dow for claims brought by a Westgate employee against Dow for any injuries on Dow’s premises. In other words, Dow argued that Westgate owed Dow an indemnity for Sidney’s original claim. 

Dow also brought a third-party petition against several insurers of Westgate, alleging the insurers provided policies to Westgate. Dow also claimed it was an additional insured under relevant policies. The insurers then filed an exception stating that Dow had no right of action to sue them directly, as Dow’s claims were based on its agreement with Westgate, not as Dow’s status as an injured tort victim, a requirement by Louisiana law. 

The Eighteenth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Iberville, Louisiana, granted the insurers’ exception and dismissed Dow’s third-party claim. Dow then appealed the dismissal against four of the insurers and other issues from the trial court.  

The Direct Action Statute: Why Companies Can’t “Skip the Line”

In Louisiana, the Direct Action Statute (La. R.S. 22:1269) allows an injured victim to sue an insurance company directly. In the Mabile case, Dow tried to use this statute to sue its contractor’s insurers. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the statute is a “special right” meant for injured tort victims, not for the companies responsible for the injury (the tortfeasors). This ruling protects the integrity of the law, ensuring insurance benefits prioritize the victims, not corporate indemnity battles.

Under Louisiana law, a no right of action exception is used to determine whether the individual(s) bringing the lawsuit had a real and actual interest in the action. La. C.C.P. art. 927(A)(6). The direct action statute states, in part, that liability policies are executed for the benefit of all injured persons and to give protection and coverage to the insured for the liability the insured may have as, or for, a tortfeasor. La. R.S. 22:1269(D). Additionally, the statute states the injured person has a right of direct action against the tortfeasor’s insurer. La. R.S. 22:1269(8)(1). 

The Court of Appeal found the intent of this statute was to provide a right of action to an injured tort victim against the wrongdoer’s liability insurer. The statute was not meant to benefit the wrongdoer by giving him a direct action against a non-tortfeasor’s indemnity insurer. The Court of Appeal then found that Sidney was the injured tort victim and that Dow was the tortfeasor. Therefore, Dow was not among those to whom the direct action statute provides a remedy. The Court of Appeal held the insurers had met the requirements under the direct action statute and dismissed Dow’s claims against them. 

Dow also contended the District Court erred in finding that it had no right of action against two of the insurance companies as an additional insured. Dow claimed it was an additional insured under the policies issued by the insurers for the losses sustained by Dow. In contrast, the insurance companies claimed Dow was not named as an additional insured under the policies issued to Westgate. 

The Evidence Trap: The Danger of “Additional Insured” Claims

Dow also claimed it was an “additional insured” under its contractor’s policies. While the law might have supported Dow, the case hit a procedural wall: The failure to admit evidence. In Louisiana litigation, a document only “exists” if it is properly admitted into the trial record. Because certain insurers failed to prove Dow wasn’t an additional insured at the trial level, they lost their chance to dismiss the claim on appeal. This highlights why your legal team must be experts in the “boring” rules of evidence to protect your win.

The Court of Appeal found the first insurance company, Great American Alliance Insurance Company, failed to offer evidence supporting their claim that Dow was not an additional insured to the District Court. The Court of Appeal also found the second insurance company, Gray Insurance Company, failed to enter into evidence with the District Court the entire policy issued to Westgate. 

An appellate court cannot receive new evidence and is unable to review evidence not in the record on appeal. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Dow’s additional insured claims against the two insurance companies. See Niemann v. Crosby Development Co.

This case demonstrates the importance of both understanding your specific insurance policies and for knowing the rules and procedures of the Louisiana court system, such as properly admitting evidence. These rules are often very complicated and may require an attorney with ample experience in such matters.      

What This Means for Your Mesothelioma Claim

This case proves that even after a jury finds a company like Dow Chemical liable, the battle isn’t over. Companies will use every procedural trick—from ‘no right of action’ exceptions to insurance indemnity cross-claims—to avoid paying out. If you worked at a plant in Iberville Parish or a local shipyard, you need a law firm that knows how to cut through the corporate red tape.

The Mabile v. Dow case is a reminder that in Louisiana asbestos litigation, the law is a double-edged sword. While the Direct Action Statute provides a shortcut for victims, corporate defendants will use every procedural trick—from indemnity clauses to evidentiary objections—to avoid paying their share. You need a firm that understands the technicalities of insurance law just as well as the science of mesothelioma. Contact the Berniard Law Firm today for a free review of your chemical plant exposure claim.”

Additional Sources: SIDNEY JOSEPH MABILE, SR. VERSUS THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL. 

Written by Berniard Law Firm 

Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Insurance Disputes and Properly Admitting Evidence: What is the “Substantial Factor Test” in Louisiana Asbestos and Mesothelioma Litigation? 

The Mabile case shows how difficult it is to prove specific asbestos exposure when multiple sites are involved.

Corporate defendants often use Federal Court Removal as another tactic to avoid the Direct Action Statute.