Calif. jury returns asbestos verdict of more than $868,000

A San Francisco jury has ruled in favor of the family of a drywall taper in a products liability case against a former manufacturer and supplier of asbestos-containing joint compound, spray texture and acoustical ceiling spray. The jury determined in Aline Ivance, Vicky Woolley, and Lindy Schluter v. Rich-Tex Inc (San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 419435) that defendant Rich-Tex Inc.’s asbestos-containing products were defectively designed and assessed $368,787.64 in economic damages and $500,000 in non-economic damages.

According to law firm Brayton Purcell LLP, which represented Douglas Ivance’s family, Douglas died on April 20, 2003, from respiratory failure caused in part by asbestos and severe asbestos-related pleural disease. He had been a career drywall taper throughout the San Francisco Bay Area for 47 years.

According to the case, Ivance worked with asbestos-containing drywall products, including joint compound, spray texture and acoustical ceiling spray.

Based in Richmond, Calif., Rich-Tex Inc. was a manufacturer and supplier of asbestos-containing drywall products, including joint compound, spray texture and acoustical ceiling spray, from 1963 to 1977. The company supplied asbestos-containing drywall products to the majority of Ivance’s employers during that time period, when Ivance used the products.

At trial, plaintiffs presented evidence showing that when used as intended, Rich-Tex Inc.’s asbestos-containing products had to be mixed, applied, sanded, and cleaned up — all of which released hazardous asbestos dust, according to Brayton Purcell.

The trial began on Jan. 16, 2007. Defendant Rich-Tex Inc. was represented at trial by Michael J. Boland of Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery LLP. The Ivance family was represented by James P. Nevin and Laurel Halbany of Brayton Purcell LLP.

The jury decided 11-1 that there was a design defect in Rich-Tex’s products, and noted the company failed to warn the plaintiff.

Judge Julie Tang of Department 303 of the San Francisco Superior Court presided over the case.