In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, a jury awarded $32.7 million to the estate of Franklin Delenor Finch, finding that prolonged asbestos exposure at a Firestone tire plant caused his fatal mesothelioma.
Trial focused on insulation from Covil Corp.
Finch, 78, worked from 1975 to 1995 in the curing department at Firestone’s Wilson, N.C., facility. He handled mold‑changing tasks that required frequent contact with asbestos‑containing pipe insulation installed by Covil Corp. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that when workers “bumped into, walked on, or got near” the insulated lines, dust was released, exposing anyone in the room to asbestos fibers.
Related: Firms Weigh Options for Global Expansion
Expert testimony in asbestos science reported air‑sampling results ranging from 1 to 250 fibers per cubic centimeter during removal of pipe covering—levels far exceeding normal ambient concentrations. The expert concluded that such exposure, repeated daily, constituted a significant inhalation of asbestos.
The defense contended that Covil stopped selling asbestos insulation after May 1973, arguing that any product sold thereafter was asbestos‑free. However, plaintiffs highlighted internal documents showing Covil’s president attended a 1960s conference on asbestos and acknowledged employee deaths linked to the company’s insulation. Additionally, Firestone records indicated that about 7,400 linear feet of asbestos pipe insulation were removed in 1990, with no replacement installed before that abatement.
Finch’s medical journey and family impact
Finch was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2016.
Related: Lawyers Uncover Hidden Networking Strategies
While the jury found Covil negligent and failing to provide adequate warnings, the defense argued that other defendants—named but later dismissed—could share responsibility. The court added pre‑ and post‑judgment interest to the verdict, and Covil has since filed a motion seeking a new trial.
Cases like Finch’s illustrate the lingering legal and health ramifications of industrial asbestos use, especially when companies continued to install known hazardous materials despite decades of scientific evidence. The verdict highlights how courts may hold manufacturers accountable for failing to warn workers, even when the exposure occurred many years prior to the disease’s manifestation.
