A California jury has awarded approximately $107 million in damages to the family of Joel Hernandezcueva, a 45-year-old janitor who died from mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. The verdicts returned on July 7 and July 11, concluded a two-phase trial at the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Joel Hernandezcueva, who lived in Long Beach, worked at a mixed-use development in Irvine, California. His role as a janitor exposed him to asbestos fibers during cleanup operations amid renovations, claimed his family.
Hernandezcueva, who was a father to four children, succumbed to pleural mesothelioma in 2014.
Verdict Details and Defendant Responsibilities
The jury’s decision involved a $32 million compensatory damage award in the first phase of the trial, with an additional $75 million in punitive damages assessed in the second phase. The court’s judgment may also incorporate significant interest amounts, as suggested by the family’s legal team at Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP.
According to the verdict forms, Union Carbide Corp. was found to be the most culpable, responsible for 46.4% of the negligence that led to Hernandezcueva’s illness. Elementis Chemicals and E.F. Brady Co. Inc. were also found negligent, contributing 5% and 10% to the harm, respectively.
Union Carbide was uniquely found to have acted with malice, according to the jury. Benjamin Adams, representing the Hernandezcueva family, remarked on the company’s awareness of the risks associated with their asbestos products. He criticized Union Carbide for misleading its customers about the safety of its asbestos, even though internal documents reportedly showed a starkly different reality.
Jessica Dean, another attorney for the family, highlighted that Union Carbide had calculated the cost of future cancer claims against the profits from continuing its asbestos operations unabatedly. Over 863 million pounds of asbestos were sold by the company, which it considered justifiable despite the potential legal consequences.
Company Response and Legal Proceedings
Union Carbide has strongly disagreed with the jury’s findings, particularly criticizing the punitive damages as excessive and not in line with California law. The company described the verdict as “runaway” and plans to seek its reversal on appeal, arguing that the decision does not align with the intended purpose of punitive damages, which is to influence corporate behavior.
The lawsuit, initiated in 2011 before Hernandezcueva’s death, had seen several rounds in court, including a previous trial in 2013 and subsequent appeals that overturned earlier rulings favoring the defendants. During the latest trial, Union Carbide’s motions for a mistrial—based on claims of prejudicial statements by the plaintiff’s counsel—were denied.
