Menssen v. Pneumo Abex Corp.
975 N.E.2d 345
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Menssen sued Abex, Honeywell, and UNARCO employees/affiliates for a civil conspiracy to misrepresent or suppress asbestos hazards from 1967–1969 at UNARCO.
- Plaintiff alleged Abex/Honeywell actions mirrored other asbestos-industry conduct and caused her mesothelioma.
- Jury in 2010 awarded $3.5M compensatory and substantial punitive damages against Abex and Honeywell.
- Abex and Honeywell separately moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; trial court denied.
- Appellate Court reversed, holding Menssen failed to prove a conspiratorial agreement; Rodarmel precedent controls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Menssen prove a civil conspiracy by circumstantial evidence? | Menssen relied on parallel conduct and additional evidence. | Parallel conducts alone do not prove agreement; insufficient under McClure. | No; evidence failed to show an agreement; judgment n.o.v. reversed. |
| Is the Rodarmel standard applicable to this case? | Rodarmel supports plaintiff's conspiracy theory. | Rodarmel should control; evidence insufficient. | Rodarmel governs; plaintiff fails under its clear-and-convincing standard. |
| Did the Saranac Laboratory dusting experiments evidence support Abex’s conspiracy? | Concealment of cancer findings shows unlawful intent. | Concealment was not unlawful or tortious. | Insufficient to prove conspiracy; dismissible under Rodarmel. |
| Did additional evidence beyond parallel conduct establish a conspiratorial agreement? | Extra evidentiary items show coordinated concealment. | Extra items do not establish unlawful agreement. | Insufficient; not enough to infer agreement; affirm reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 188 Ill. 2d 102 (1999) (civil-conspiracy proof requires agreement and tortious act; not merely parallel conduct)
- Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex, L.L.C., 2011 IL App (4th) 100463 (2011) (parallel conduct alone insufficient; clear-and-convincing standard for circumstantial proof; discards Dukes approach)
- Dukes v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 386 Ill. App. 3d 425 (2008) (prior panel allowed additional evidence to prove conspiracy; not followed here)
- Burgess v. Abex Corp., 311 Ill. App. 3d 900 (2000) (evidence of industry cooperation; not sufficient alone to prove conspiracy)