Yesterday, a $10 million verdict against Ford Motor Company was overturned in Texas.

Carolyn Miller died at age 54 from mesothelioma; she was exposed to asbestos fibers that clung to her father's clothing when he returned from work. He was employed by Ford on and off for over a decade, where he worked directly with asbestos. In 2001, Carolyn, her father, and her husband were awarded $10 million in damages from Ford. Now, an appellate court ruled that because Carolyn never entered Ford property, the company is not responsible for her asbestos exposure. They court also revoked Carolyn's father's award, claiming that he "only might" develop cancer.

In overturning the decision, this appellate court is doing a significant injustice to a family whose daughter unexpectedly and suddenly died as a direct result of asbestos exposure. It is likely that Carolyn's father will experience health complications caused by the asbestos, and revoking his settlement will substantially limit his medical treatment options. Companies should be ready to take full responsibility for overlooking the dangers of asbestos and failing to use safe substitutes. To read the full story, click here.

On Friday, workers in Tokyo filed a 6.6 billion yen (about 444 million U.S. dollars) class action lawsuit against the government and manufacturers who, they believe, were responsible for causing asbestos-related disease. The plaintiffs claim that the government and manufacturers knew of the dangers of asbestos inhalation but failed to take proper precautions, including ceasing to promote asbestos as a cheap fire retardant and banning production of the material.

The claim states that after working among asbestos, 172 employees developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or have died as a result of exposure. They charge the government with failing to react quickly to international asbestos warnings issued in 1972. "We will do our utmost until we win the suit," said Kazuo Miyajima, 78, who heads the group of plaintiffs.

A recent article states, "After a 2005 revelation that residents who lived near a factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture developed diseases related to asbestos, the government implemented a law in 2006 which provides monetary assistance to asbestos victims and relatives of deceased family members. The plaintiffs argue that the amount of financial assistance given to families and victims of asbestos-related diseases is not sufficient."

A Texas woman suffering from mesothelioma is blaming her father's employers for her exposure to asbestos.

Cynthia Leigh Chason named at least three defendants she believed caused her father to work among asbestos. Cynthia suspects that he was exposed to asbestos consistently for about 20 years, and during this time brought fibers home on his clothing. He worked for Marathon Petroleum Company and as a contractor at BASF Corporation and shipyards.

The claim states Chason "was exposed to large quantities of asbestos from the products and/or machinery manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled relabeled, resold, processed, applied, or installed by the above-named Defendants."

A Washington man suffering from mesothelioma filed a suit naming 68 defendants this week.  He was employed by the U.S. Army for forty years, and like the 67 other defendants, they are facing charges regarding asbestos negligence.

The claim also named major companies such as CBS, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, General Motors, Goodyear, Honeywell International, and Ingersoll-Rand.

James Regal was diagnosed with mesothelioma on February 8. In his claim, he states that the defendants failed to educate employees and consumers on the dangers of asbestos. Regal believes they also did not adequately teach employees how to prevent bringing asbestos fibers home.

Regal also suffers "great physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money," the complaint states. He is seeking at least $300,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations.

Earnest L. Edwards of Texas spent his life working as a pipe-fitter and consistently came in contact with asbestos. When he was diagnosed with asbestos-related disease, he filed a lawsuit and received compensation. Now deceased, Earnest's family is suing for a "different malignant asbestos-related injury," which they claim ended his life.

The suit names 35 defendants who, according to the claim, knowingly put Earnest and other employees at risk by failing to warn them of the risks associated with asbestos and insisting on using the material even when safer substitutes were available.

Though Earnest sued while he was alive, a 2000 precedent in Texas determined that an individual may sue again if he/she develops cancer after the original claim. The opinion overruled a long history of Texas cases holding that a person may only bring one lawsuit for an asbestos-related injury, even if he develops a second, catastrophic asbestos-related cancer at a much later date.