Mr. Ravert was diagnosed with mesothelioma and sued multiple defendants claiming exposure to asbestos from their products. Defendants were awarded summary judgment on the basis that Ravert’s testimony did not established that he breathed asbestos-containing dust from Defendants’ products, and that the Plaintiff’s expert affidavits represented “an artificial record which attempts to dehor [Plaintiff’s] observation denying the existence of asbestos dust.” The appellate court reversed, finding an issue of fact as to whether there was dust from the products, and noting that Plaintiff has a diminished burden of meeting a frequency, regularity and proximity threshold in cases of mesothelioma, since the disease can be caused by limited exposure to asbestos.
