Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex, L.L.C.
957 N.E.2d 107
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Juanita Rodarmel has mesothelioma from asbestos carried home on her first husband’s clothing during 1953–1956 while he worked at UNARCO.
- UNARCO personnel testified they received no warning about asbestos; UNARCO itself is not a defendant.
- Defendants Honeywell International, Inc. and Pneumo Abex, L.L.C. (successors of Bendix and American Brake Shoe respectively) are sued for civil conspiracy with other companies to suppress hazards of asbestos.
- Plaintiffs claimed a conspiracy to assert asbestos safety and withhold information about its harms, leading to damages for Juanita and spousal/medical costs for Baxter.
- Jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages, but the trial court denied post-trial judgments notwithstanding the verdict.
- Court reverses, finding no duty owed by UNARCO in 1953–1956 and no clear and convincing evidence of an agreement among defendants to conceal asbestos dangers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did UNARCO owe a duty to warn home workers in 1953–1956? | Rodarmel argues duty existed due to foreseeability. | Honeywell/Abex contend no duty in 1950s given lack of foreseeability. | No duty found for 1953–1956 period. |
| Can parallel conduct alone support a civil conspiracy verdict? | Rodarmel contends parallel conduct shows agreement with coconspirators. | Honeywell/Abex argue parallel conduct is insufficient to prove agreement. | Parallel conduct insufficient; need clear and convincing evidence of agreement. |
| Was there evidence of a conspiratorial agreement between Bendix/Honeywell and others? | Dukes-type evidence (shared directors, trade groups, information sharing) supports conspiracy. | McClure precludes inference from such evidence; no clear agreement shown. | No clear and convincing evidence of an agreement; reversal affirmed. |
| Did Abex’s suppression of tumorous mice evidence amount to an unlawful act under conspiracy doctrine? | Suppression was part of an unlawful conspiracy to hide cancer links. | Suppression was science-policy decision; not an unlawful act without solid evidence. | No unlawful act found; Abex entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 188 Ill. 2d 102 (Ill. 2000) (parallel conduct cannot prove agreement; clear and convincing standard applies)
- Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill. 2d 274 (Ill. 2007) (duty inquiry considering foreseeability, likelihood, burden, consequences)
- Dukes v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 386 Ill. App. 3d 425 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (items of evidence beyond parallel conduct examined for conspiratorial agreement)
- Burgess v. Abex Corp., 311 Ill. App. 3d 900 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (previous ruling on suppression evidence rejected)
- Reed v. Northwestern Publishing Co., 124 Ill. 2d 495 (Ill. 1988) (direct/indirect evidence standards in civil cases)