A mesothelioma diagnosis is a devastating blow, often coming decades after the initial exposure to asbestos. Because these injuries take so long to manifest, the resulting legal battles are among the most complex in Louisiana. Winning requires more than just medical records; it requires a deep-dive into thirty years of industrial history to prove which defendants’ actions were a substantial factor in your illness.
The use of asbestos in products such as concrete, bricks, pipes, and other building materials has made way for a large amount of litigation on asbestos-related diseases and deaths. This litigation can help victims of the chemical and their families find some sort of meaning and relief from the toxic material. Litigation on asbestos, however, is very difficult both because the asbestos-related damages did not result from a single, identifiable act, and because it is not only the companies that produced the asbestos which are guilty- it is also those that used and marketed it.
A recent case contains both of these difficulties. Phillip Graf was exposed to asbestos for a period of 30 years while working in several jobs including metal works and drywall. Such extended exposure to such toxic material places one at risk of contracting mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. Graf suffered from mesothelioma and later died from the disease. His family, Beatrice, Doryk, and Paulette Graf are suing in response to his death. They have named 29 defendants in the case, including Benjamin Moore & Co. and Metropolitan Life. The Graf family claims that the defendants are not only guilty of designing, manufacturing, packaging, transporting, and selling asbestos products, but also aiding and abetting the marketing of asbestos products.
The “Substantial Factor” Test: Linking Exposure to Illness
In a standard injury case, you point to one accident. In an asbestos case, exposure often happens over 30+ years at multiple job sites. To win in Louisiana, a plaintiff must prove that a specific defendant’s product or conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing the mesothelioma. This requires meticulous research into work histories, product brands, and scientific testimony to bridge the multi-decade gap between exposure and diagnosis. What is worse, typically problems that result from asbestos exposure take years to show. Mesothelioma itself is impossible to detect early on and its symptoms are similar to other diseases, so patients are frequently misdiagnosed. All of this makes it very difficult for plaintiffs to prove that their health problems resulted from asbestos exposure and then link that asbestos exposure to the actions of the defendants. In the Graf case, the Graf family will have to show that the suffering and death Phillip Graf endured from his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure, and that the named defendants caused that exposure.
In one case of asbestos exposure a large amount of defendants may be guilty based upon their involvement in the asbestos use. Unfortunately, an employee cannot typically sue and employer for asbestos exposure because of the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act which requires that such injuries be addressed through workers compensation, not tort suits. As a result, it is important to find other theories of liability on which a victim can sue.
Identifying Defendants: From Manufacturers to Building Owners
Asbestos litigation is rarely about a single company. Often, the original manufacturers have gone bankrupt, requiring a legal team to look further down the chain. This includes marketers, transporters, and even building owners. Under Louisiana law, building owners can be strictly liable for damages caused by asbestos on their property, providing an essential pathway for recovery when an employer is shielded by workers’ compensation laws.
The easiest potential defendant is the building owners, if they are different from the employer. In Phillip Graf’s case, this would be the person or corporation which owned the building in which he was exposed to asbestos. Building owners are strictly liable for damages caused by asbestos on their property.
Identifying Liable Parties: Navigating the Maze of Asbestos Defendants
| Potential Defendant | Theory of Liability | The Legal Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Product Manufacturers | Defective Design / Failure to Warn | Many original companies are now bankrupt. |
| Building Owners | Strict Liability (Property Law) | Must prove exposure occurred on their premises. |
| Product Marketers | Negligence / Aiding and Abetting | Requires proof they knew the risks and hid them. |
| Employers | Workers' Compensation | Tort suits are generally barred by state law. |
The Workers’ Comp Barrier: Finding Alternative Paths to Justice
Under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, employees generally cannot sue their employers for workplace injuries. This is a major hurdle in asbestos cases. However, we navigate this by identifying third-party defendants—such as the manufacturers of the pumps, valves, or insulation used on-site—who are not protected by the workers’ comp shield.
In the past, most litigation on asbestos focused on the companies that produced asbestos products. However, because of asbestos-related suits, many of these companies have since gone bankrupt. Some plaintiffs have attempted to draw even further chains of causality, suing manufacturers of products used in conjunction with other manufacturers’ asbestos products, such as the manufacturers of pumps and valves. Whether these companies can be liable for failure to warn of asbestos-related hazards in products made by others is still in contention. No matter the theory of liability, as we have illustrated before, to be liable the defendant’s conduct must be a substantial factor in the harm. Thus, for example, for Metropolitan Life, the Graf family will have to show that the company’s aiding and abetting of the marketing and negligence related to asbestos products was a substantial factor in Phillip Graf’s contraction of mesothelioma.
As cases such as Graf’s show, with the many liability strategies and the problems that arise over the timing of exposure and the development of the disease, litigation in asbestos cases can become extremely complicated. In order to fully protect and preserve your rights in an asbestos case, you need to be sure to retain an attorney who is familiar with the many complexities of asbestos cases.
Asbestos litigation is a marathon of research and strategy. From identifying bankrupt manufacturers to holding building owners strictly liable, every detail matters. If you or a loved one are facing an asbestos-related disease, don’t navigate this maze alone. Contact the Berniard Law Firm today for an experienced evaluation of your claim and a strategy built on 20 years of toxic tort expertise.
If a loved one has already passed from mesothelioma, you may still be able to seek justice through a Louisiana Survival Action.
UPDATE February 2026: Following recent landmark verdicts and the federal approval of MDL 3171, the Berniard Law Firm is now providing nationwide representation for Uber and Lyft sexual assault survivors. If you were harmed during a rideshare trip, click here to learn about your rights under the new 2026 legal standards.