Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious Outperformance
Find Stocks Now

Talc supplier hit with $29 million verdict in South Carolina trial

Published 03/06/2023, 02:50 PM
Updated 03/06/2023, 03:32 PM
© Reuters.

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) - A South Carolina jury has ordered former talc supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels to pay $29.14 million to a woman who said she developed mesothelioma from being exposed to asbestos-tainted talc in cosmetic products.

The jury in Columbia on Friday also found that talc manufacturer IMI (LON:IMI) Fabi was not responsible for plaintiff Sarah Plant's illness, clearing it of liability, according to Jessica Dean, a lawyer for the plaintiff.

Cosmetics company Mary Kay and makeup pigment maker Color Techniques were also defendants but were dropped mid-trial after reaching confidential agreements with Plant. The trial was the first over talc claims against Mary Kay, according to Dean.

She said the verdict against Whittaker was just but that she wished the case could have been resolved before trial.

"I just hope we can figure out a better way than having juries resolve (cases) every time," she said. "It's truly horrible for our clients who don't have time."

A lawyer for Whittaker declined to comment, and Italy-based IMI Fabi did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Whittaker is no longer in business, and its corporate successor is a U.S. arm of Germany-based chemical company Brenntag SE, according to court records.

Plant, now 36, sued the companies last year. She said she developed mesothelioma, a deadly cancer, at age 35 after using a variety of talc products since early childhood that contained asbestos.

Leading talc product maker Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) had also been a defendant in the case but was not part of the trial because it transferred its talc liabilities to a subsidiary that it placed in bankruptcy. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January rejected that bankruptcy strategy, and Dean said she hoped Plant would have a chance to take the company to trial as well.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels last year won a reversal of a $16 million verdict in a similar cosmetic talc case against it in New York.

The case is Plant v. Avon Products Inc (NYSE:AVP)., et al., South Carolina Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, No. 2022CP4001265.

For Plant: Jessica Dean of Dean Omar Branham Shirley

For Whittaker: Stephanie Flynn of Fox Rothschild

For IMI Fabi: Elizabeth O'Neill of Womble Bond Dickinson

Read more:

N.Y. high court overturns $16.5 million asbestos verdict

U.S. court rejects J&J bankruptcy strategy for thousands of talc lawsuits

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.