Connecticut Mesothelioma Verdicts and Settlements

Connecticut’s industrial footprint is smaller than Pennsylvania’s or New York’s, but the state has produced a distinctive litigation profile centered on Bridgeport Superior Court, where two talc trials reached jury verdict in 2024 alone. The submarine and aerospace trades in Groton and Stratford continue to generate occupational exposure claims, and the state’s judicial precedents on medical monitoring and expert causation testimony set binding rules that affect every case filed here.

Major Connecticut Mesothelioma Verdicts

Plotkin v. Johnson & Johnson et al., $25 Million

On October 15, 2024, after a trial that ran from September 10 through October 15, a Bridgeport Superior Court jury awarded Somers, CT resident Evan Plotkin $15 million in compensatory damages against Johnson & Johnson (docket FBT-CV-21-6109520-S). Plotkin, an artist and sculptor, alleged mesothelioma from decades of J&J talc-based baby powder use on himself and his children, spanning the 1950s through the 2000s, as well as exposure to asbestos-containing art supplies.

Under Connecticut law, the trial judge determines the punitive amount once a jury finds the defendant’s conduct warrants punishment. On October 1, 2025, the court added $10 million in punitive damages, bringing the total to $25 million. The trial court denied J&J’s motion to set aside the verdict and motion for a new trial. J&J announced its intent to appeal. As of the date of this article’s update, no ruling has issued from the Connecticut Appellate Court. Plotkin was represented by Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP.

Barone v. Blue M et al. (R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Co. Inc.), $22.5 Million

A separate Bridgeport talc case produced a $22.5 million verdict for the family of Nicholas Barone of Milford, CT, who died of mesothelioma. The trial was before Judge William F. Clark (docket FBT-CV-22-6116587S). On May 16, 2024, under less than two hours of deliberation, the jury awarded $10 million to the estate and $5 million to widow Kathryn Barone. Judge Clark added $7.5 million in punitive damages on November 27, 2024.

Barone worked as a plant engineer at a General Electric phenolic resin compounding facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, from 1965 to 1967. The asbestos-contaminated talc at that facility was supplied by International Talc, a company later acquired by R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company Inc. in 1974. The defendant in the verdict was R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company Inc., the parent entity. Its subsidiary, Vanderbilt Minerals LLC, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2026. Vanderbilt Minerals cited $117.2 million in accumulated talc litigation costs in its bankruptcy filing, according to reporting by Insurance Journal on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court NDNY case 26-60110. No appeal status for the Barone verdict has been confirmed in neutral sources as of this writing.

Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group, Reversed by the Connecticut Supreme Court

Wayne Bagley, a Sikorsky manufacturing engineer, died of mesothelioma after sanding FM-37 epoxy, an adhesive applied to helicopter rotor blades that contained 8.6% asbestos, at Sikorsky’s Stratford facility. A jury awarded $804,777 against adhesive manufacturer Wyeth Holdings Corporation. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed that verdict in SC 19835 (327 Conn. 89), officially released November 7, 2017. The court held that plaintiffs had not produced expert testimony specifically showing that sanding the cured FM-37 epoxy released respirable asbestos fibers. Both the negligence and strict liability claims failed on that basis, and the court directed a verdict for Wyeth Holdings.

Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., No Medical Monitoring Cause of Action

Construction subcontractors, including appellants Badorek, Daley, Grem, and Ferrara, were exposed to residual asbestos-containing pipe insulation at Sikorsky’s Stratford cogeneration project and sought medical monitoring damages. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and Carrier Corporation. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed on September 14, 2020, in SC 20271 (337 Conn. 27), holding that Connecticut does not recognize a medical monitoring cause of action absent a present physical injury, and that general evidence of asbestos harm is not enough to sustain the claim. No fault allocation or damages were involved.

Connecticut Jurisdictional Doctrine

Two Connecticut Supreme Court decisions shape what mesothelioma plaintiffs must prove and what relief they can seek, and together they set a demanding bar. Dougan (2020) held that Connecticut plaintiffs cannot sue for the cost of medical surveillance based on asbestos exposure alone; they must have a diagnosed disease. That rule binds every Connecticut trial court and reaches any case where exposure is documented but disease has not yet appeared. Bagley (2017) sharpens the causation requirement from the other direction: a well-documented occupational exposure can still end in a defense verdict when plaintiffs fail to present expert testimony tying the specific product, in its condition at the time of exposure, to the release of respirable fibers. Exposure history alone does not establish causation here.

Where those cases are tried has narrowed too. Two talc verdicts in a single calendar year, Plotkin in October 2024 and Barone in May 2024, confirm Fairfield County’s Bridgeport courthouse as the state’s most active asbestos trial docket for product liability claims against talc manufacturers and industrial talc suppliers.

Three Statutes, Three Deadlines

Connecticut’s asbestos filing deadlines come from three statutes, and the rule turns on the theory of liability. Personal injury claims under § 52-584, sounding in negligence or reckless conduct, must be filed within two years of when the injury was first sustained, discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered; for latent asbestos disease the clock typically starts at diagnosis, subject to an absolute three-year repose from the defendant’s act or omission. Wrongful death claims under § 52-555 run two years from the date of death, or five years from the act or omission, whichever expires first under the post-1991 amendment, and that statute is the sole basis for claims where death is an element of damages.

Product liability claims under § 52-577a, against talc suppliers, insulation manufacturers, brake and gasket makers, and similar defendants, carry a three-year window from when the injury, death, or property damage is first sustained, discovered, or should have been discovered. The critical wrinkle is Connecticut Public Act 11-200 (2011), which exempted asbestos exposure from the standard 10-year repose that otherwise applies to product liability claims. For personal injury and wrongful death asbestos claims, the repose extends to 80 years from the claimant’s last asbestos contact; for property damage claims, it runs 30 years. Anyone told that the 10-year repose cuts off an asbestos product liability claim should get a second opinion, because the exemption may apply.

Settlements, Trusts, and the Vanderbilt Bankruptcy

Most Connecticut mesothelioma cases resolve before trial through settlements with manufacturers and claims against asbestos bankruptcy trust funds. Dozens of trusts exist for defendants who filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos liability, including trusts tied to insulation, gasket, brake, and textile manufacturers whose products appear in Electric Boat, Raymark, and Sikorsky exposure histories. Trust claims are handled separately from litigation and proceed on their own timelines. The Vanderbilt Minerals Chapter 11 filing in February 2026, citing $117.2 million in accumulated talc litigation costs, will eventually produce a trust for claimants whose exposure traces to Vanderbilt talc products, though the trust has not yet been established or funded as of this writing.