Lawn fertilizer asbestos case against Scotts revived

23 Jul 2018 by under Legal

lawn green grass publicdomainpictures dot net 100x100 Lawn fertilizer asbestos case against Scotts revivedA widow’s lawsuit against Scotts Co. LLC, alleging the lawn and garden products maker’s goods contributed to her husband’s mesothelioma, will move forward after the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to entertain an appellate opinion based on new evidence.

Lorenz Brandecker had filed his lawsuit in July 2012 against Scotts and others, just four months after he was diagnosed with the deadly form of cancer, and three months before the disease killed him. His wife, Adrianne, filed an amended complaint in January 2013 in which she was named as the plaintiff.

Lorenz Brandecker worked as a cabinetmaker and alleged that while on the job he was exposed to products that contained , a known carcinogen that has been linked to mesothelioma. He also claimed that he was exposed to from the lawn fertilizer Turf Builder, which is made by Scotts.

The Brandeckers’ lawsuit claimed that twice a year from 1967 to 1980, Lorenz had spread two bags of Turf Builder on his lawn in Wayne Township, New Jersey. A year later, Scotts was granted a summary judgment and was released from the lawsuit based on a lack of evidence that the vermiculite from which the fertilizer was made contained any residual asbestos after processing. After Adrianne settled with the last remaining defendant, the case was dismissed in July 2015.

But in May 2015, Brandecker’s attorney learned that Scotts was in possession of more than two dozen samples of Turf Builder dating back to 1979 that were made using vermiculite from the same Libby, Montana, mine as that in the Turf Builder products Adrianne Brandecker’s husband used. As a result, Ms. Brandecker moved in July 2015 to vacate the summary judgment with Scotts. The motion was denied by the trial court on procedural grounds. Brandecker appealed, and the panel ruled that the lower court’s decision to deny the motion to vacate was “a misapplication of discretion.”

Source: Law360

Comments are closed.