The Estate of Nicholas Barone trial in Bridgeport Superior Court in Connecticut before Judge William Clark concluded with a $15 million plaintiff’s verdict on 5/16/2024. The jury also awarded punitive damages, the exact amount to be determined by the trial judge at a later date. Upon oral argument and review of the parties’ briefs Judge Clark awarded plaintiffs $7,500,000 in punitive damages noting that Vanderbilt Minerals was a sophisticated defendant in position to know of the dangers associated with the mining operation and would not be financially ruined by such an award.

At trial, Plaintiffs alleged that decedent Nicholas Barone was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-contaminated talc while working as an engineer from 1965 to 1967. Mr. Barone worked in a location where phenolic plastics compounds that incorporated both raw asbestos and talc were manufactured, and he recalled employees at the facility having “snowball fights” with raw asbestos. Mr. Barone was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died at age 81.

Plaintiff argued for $30 million in punitive damages, the maximum amount permissible by Gen. Stat
§ 52-240b. Plaintiff asserted that such an award was necessary to hold Vanderbilt accountable and to prevent other companies from engaging in similar deceptive practices. Plaintiffs stressed that the punitive damages would not financially ruin Vanderbilt but would send a strong message about the importance of corporate responsibility and consumer safety. Additionally, Plaintiff emphasized that Vanderbilt prioritized profit over safety, continuing to mine and sell asbestos-laden products despite knowing the risks since 1925.

In response, Vanderbilt argued that no punitive damages should be awarded. Further, Vanderbilt denied that it engaged in reckless conduct and submitted that the applicable factors weigh against any award for punitive damages. Notwithstanding, Vanderbilt argued that if the Court decided that some punitive damages must be awarded, the defendant argues that only a nominal amount should be awarded.

In Connecticut, the trial courts have the exclusive authority to determine the amount of punitive damages when the trier-of-fact has determined that punitive damages should be awarded. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b; Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 324 Conn. 402, 450 (2016). CPLA damages are capped at twice the amount of compensatory damages. See, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b. The Connecticut Supreme Court directed courts to award damages based on the factors laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Shipping v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008). See, Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375,452 (2013). The Exxon factors include:

1. the degrees of relative blameworthiness, i.e., whether the defendant’s conduct was reckless, intentional or malicious;
2. whether the defendant’s [a]ction [was] taken or omitted in order to augment profit;
3. whether the wrongdoing was hard to detect;
4. whether the injury and compensatory damages were small, providing a low incentive to bring the action; and
5. whether the award will deter the defendant and others from similar conduct, without financially destroying the defendant.

Further, Ulbrich also directs courts to consider the three-part test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 438 U.S. at 413, which considers:

1. the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct;
2. the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and
3. the difference between the punitive damages awarded … and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.

In consideration of the abovementioned factors, the Court determined punitive damages were appropriate in this case. Judge Clark noted that Vanderbilt was provided a full opportunity at trial to contest evidence offered by the plaintiff as well as offer its own defense regarding the various allegations including successor liability. The Court further reasoned that Vanderbilt’s attempt to insulate itself from a finding of damages was misplaced due to the jury’s specific findings of successor liability, and reckless conduct through the unanimous verdict to award punitive damages.

Judge Clark’s reasoning focused on Vanderbilt’s long-standing awareness of asbestos hazards, dating back to 1925. In the Court’s view, despite this knowledge, the company continued to mine and sell talc products without adequate warnings, prioritizing profit over consumer safety. The Court noted that Vanderbilt is/was a “sophisticated business” and highlighted Vanderbilt’s strategic efforts to conceal the dangers, including lobbying and promoting selective scientific definitions to downplay risks. Further, the decision noted that in light of the financial information shared by the defendant, this award would not result in financial ruin.

This ruling serves as a warning to corporations about the severe consequences of “hiding dangerous products from consumers or seeking to minimize the impact of toxins through hyper-technical definition or scientific lobbying strategies.” Because defendants like Vanderbilt are in a position to know the dangers associated with the dangers of mining and the products produced from that mining, the Court found this award necessary deter others from similar practices. Therefore, the Court concluded that the award is appropriate due to Vanderbilt’s choice to prioritize profit over public safety and reflects a commitment to justice for the Barone family.