Fact patterns matter greatly, especially if lawyers sit back and think creatively. In Illinois, a trial court recently received a fact pattern that required it to assess the claims that arose from two family members working for the same asbestos insulation business. The fact pattern involve a father and son, and the son developed a mesothelioma. He then tried to pursue take home type claims, arguing (it appears) some form of the dual capacity doctrine that has been around for decades, and has opened the door to some suits against some employers. The Illinois trial court said “no” to the claim, as described in blog post at Matushek Niles, under its “news” tab. One suspects there will be more future news on this and other cases presenting variant or similar fact patterns. In this instance, the Matushek firm post describes the situation as follows:

“The alleged secondary exposure occurred during the time period that both Mr. Hill and his father were working together for Brand. Nonetheless, plaintiff argued his secondary exposure claim was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision because the secondary exposures occurred away from the jobsite, such as while sharing a vehicle together over the course of several months and during frequent visits to his father’s home on weekends. Plaintiff also presented the expert testimony of Dr. Arthur Frank, who opined that Mr. Hill would have been secondarily exposed to Brand’s asbestos through the process of “re-entrainment” any time he visited his father’s home for several decades after they last worked together for Brand.”