Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.
23 F. Supp. 3d 914
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Quirin, executor of Ronald J. Quirin, sues Lorillard and H&V for negligence related to mesothelioma allegedly from asbestos in Kent cigarettes.
- Original Kent cigarettes (1952–1956) used a Micronite asbestos-containing filter; H&V provided asbestos-containing bulk filter media.
- Quirin smoked Kent cigarettes starting around 1954 aboard the Tolovana and continued until around 1957; he may have smoked five to seven per day.
- Experts Millette and Brodkin opine that Kent cigarette asbestos exposure could contribute to mesothelioma; record shows varying exposure levels and dose uncertainties.
- Lorillard and H&V move for summary judgment, arguing no proof of exposure to their asbestos-containing product or material causally linked to disease; court issues Daubert-related admissibility separately but denies motion on facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quirin can prove exposure to original Kent cigarettes containing asbestos. | Quirin smoked Kent with asbestos filters in 1954–1956. | Evidence insufficient to prove he smoked original Kent filters prior to 1956. | A reasonable jury could find he smoked original Kents with asbestos filters. |
| Whether asbestos exposure from Kent cigarettes was a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma. | Exposure contributed as a significant factor in disease. | Occupational exposures could suffice; Kent exposure alone need not meet but-for test. | Yes; evidence supports substantial-factor causation under Illinois law. |
| Whether expert testimony (Millette, Brodkin) is admissible to support causation. | Experts provide admissible causation and exposure testimony. | Daubert/FRE 702 challenges warranted but addressed in separate ruling. | Admissible; Daubert issues resolved in separate ruling, not grounds to grant summary judgment. |
| Whether summary judgment is proper given competing exposures and lack of dose data. | Circumstantial evidence suffices to show substantial-factor exposure. | Need to show no genuine dispute on causation or exposure. | Disputed facts remain; summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine disputes require reasonable jury)
- Thacker v. UNR Indus., Inc., 151 Ill.2d 343 (1992) (substantial-factor causation in asbestos cases; proximity-frequency-regularity test)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prods. Liab. Tr., 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) (causation proof in asbestos cases; not require exact dose)
- Nolan v. Weil-McLain, 331 Ill.Dec. 140, 910 N.E.2d 549 (2009) (requires substantial-factor proof; not mere conjecture)
- Boomer v. Ford Motor Co., 736 S.E.2d 724 (Va. 2013) (recognizes substantial-contributing-factor approach in some jurisdictions)