In a recent case filed in Portland, OR, a 71-year-old man brought various claims against numerous defendants related to products liability, negligence, and failure to warn associated with asbestos-containing products after being diagnosed with biphasic pleural mesothelioma in 2023. The case, Richard D. Long v. 3M Company, et al., was pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County. The initial trial ended in a mistrial after four days of jury deliberation. The subsequent trial resulted in the Portland jury awarding $34,200,000 to the plaintiff on
September 5, 2025.

Plaintiff filed his lawsuit after developing mesothelioma, allegedly resulting from years of working with asbestos-containing gaskets and packing while employed as a shipyard laborer. Specifically, Plaintiff worked at the Dillingham ship repair yard on Swan Island – located in the Portland, OR area – between 1972 and 1985 and regularly assisted machinists and tradesmen in the engine rooms of commercial and Naval vessels. Plaintiff’s counsel established that Plaintiff was a member of the Laborers Union Local 296 and – as a result – regularly worked with asbestos-containing gaskets and packing supplied by a defendant in the case. At trial, Plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence demonstrating that the packing defendant should have known of the dangers of asbestos exposure as early as the 1930s, had actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos exposure by the early 1970s, and that internal company documents (such as materials safety data sheets) were never provided to end users such as Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorneys argued that the asbestos warnings eventually provided by the packing defendant in 1983 were “too late” to affect the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s case was further supported by an admission from the packing defendant’s corporate representative that the company was responsible for producing safe product – despite contentions that the company’s asbestos-containing products were safe for use. Plaintiff’s counsel retained several veteran plaintiff-side expert witnesses to opine in this matter.

The case was tried in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County, where the initial trial resulted in a mistrial in June, a retrial, and a jury verdict on September 5, 2025. Notably, there were several pump, valve, gasket, contractor, and supplier defendants on the verdict form and punitive damages were potentially available to Plaintiff. Ultimately, the jury apportioned 30 percent of the fault to the packing defendant – reiterating through the award that companies are obligated to warn of the hazards associated with their products.

This $34M verdict coming out of Multnomah County is yet another entry in the roster of nuclear verdicts issued within the past several years. As previously reported (Nuclear Verdicts and Hellholes), a “nuclear verdict” is a jury award in a civil case that is significantly higher than what is considered reasonable or expected (often in excess of $10 million). Nuclear verdicts are often seen in personal injury or wrongful death suits – as exemplified in the Long matter. While Oregon did not earn an entry on the 2023-2024 Judicial Hellholes Executive Summary published by the American Tort Reform Foundation, the Long case reiterates the potential for nuclear verdicts to occur in expected and/or less infamous jurisdictions.

What This Verdict Means for You:

The Long matter is another example of a nuclear verdict – particularly in a less contentious jurisdiction – and emphasizes the importance of (1) considering mitigation strategies during early litigation stages and (2) retaining experts to counter those retained by plaintiff’s counsel. Despite the industry knowledge of a shipyard worker, the average jury has shown it expects a high level of customer and end user protection from defendant companies – as evidenced through verdicts such as that awarded in Long. Companies seeking to continue protecting their interests and shielding against nuclear verdicts should consider:

• Engage Early with Experienced Legal Counsel
  • Early legal intervention can assist with identifying weaknesses in cases, promote effective strategies, and potentially resolve disputes prior to escalation to litigation.
• Maintain Thorough and Accurate Documentation
  • Critical evidence in the Long matter included the packing defendant’s own internal documents. Keeping detailed records and having well-organized documentation can assist with providing evidence to refute claims or limit liability. Consistent record-keeping demonstrates good faith and transparency.
• Expert Retention
  • Engaging early with legal counsel can also assist with the identification and retention of defense experts. Identifying, evaluating, and countering opposing counsel’s expert witnesses is critical – particularly in asbestos lawsuits – because expert testimony often plays a crucial role in establishing causation, liability, and damages. Exposing weaknesses or biases in expert testimony prevents said opinions from being unchallenged in front of the jury and may result in lower verdict amounts.