Startley v. Welco Manufacturing Co.
2017 IL App (1st) 153649
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Ronnie Startley, a drywall finisher who worked mostly in Alabama but for ~3–4 months in Illinois (1965), developed mesothelioma; estate sued multiple joint-compound manufacturers, leaving Welco at trial.
- Walter Startley (co-worker/cousin) testified they used several joint compounds in Illinois including USG, Gold Bond, Bestwall, and Wel-Cote (Welco), but could not tie Wel-Cote to specific jobs or precise frequency; a portion of his earlier testimony that Wel-Cote and Bestwall were used most was deleted from the trial video without explanation.
- Experts testified joint-compound dust contained asbestos and that relatively low exposures to asbestos (including chrysotile) can contribute to mesothelioma; estate’s experts opined Ronnie’s exposures in Illinois were substantial contributing factors.
- Parties stipulated Welco used chrysotile and did not place warnings on its bags.
- Trial court directed a verdict for Welco, finding the estate failed to prove frequency/regularity/proximity of exposure, duty to warn, and causation by Welco’s chrysotile; estate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed sufficient frequency/regularity/proximity of Ronnie’s exposure to Welco’s product to permit causation to go to jury | Walter’s testimony identified Wel-Cote among products used in Illinois and experts said low exposures can cause mesothelioma, so a jury could infer Welco exposure was a substantial factor | Walter could not identify specific jobs or quantify how often Wel-Cote was used; testimony too vague to meet Thacker test | Reversed: testimony created a material fact issue; directed verdict improper (jury to decide) |
| Choice of law: Whether Alabama law applies instead of Illinois law | Estate limited claims to injuries occurring during Illinois work in 1965; injury occurred in Illinois so Illinois law governs | Welco pointed to Ronnie’s long residence/work in Alabama and most exposure there | Illinois law applies; presumption favors law where injury occurred and no stronger contacts for Alabama shown |
| Whether Welco had a duty to warn about asbestos dangers pre-1965 | Experts showed scientific consensus about asbestos hazards by the early 1960s → manufacturer should have known and had duty to warn | Welco contended no duty based on timing/knowledge dispute | Held for estate on sufficiency: evidence supported a jury question on duty to warn |
| Whether chrysotile in Welco’s product was a proven cause of mesothelioma | Experts testified all asbestos types (including chrysotile, as used commercially with contaminant longer fibers) cause mesothelioma; short-fiber questions do not negate causation | Welco relied on testimony that very short chrysotile fibers (<5 microns) lack definitive proof of causing mesothelioma | Held for estate on sufficiency: expert testimony permitted jury to find Welco’s chrysotile-containing product contributed to disease |
Key Cases Cited
- Thacker v. UNR Industries, Inc., 151 Ill. 2d 343 (Illinois 1992) (establishes frequency, regularity, and proximity test for asbestos causation)
- Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992) (applies a flexible FRP test in mesothelioma cases; minor exposures can be substantial factors)
- Holcomb v. Georgia Pacific, LLC, 289 P.3d 188 (Nev. 2012) (denied summary judgment where plaintiff’s general testimony about regular use of multiple brands supported jury inference)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Stephens, 239 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007) (found evidence insufficient where no quantitative or comparative proof that defendant’s product was used frequently)
- Ingersoll v. Klein, 46 Ill. 2d 42 (Illinois 1970) (presumption that law of place where injury occurred governs choice-of-law analysis)