Florida Mesothelioma Verdicts and Settlements

Florida’s mesothelioma docket spans shipyards, power plants, construction sites, auto-repair shops, and consumer talc products. Two confirmed 2025 verdicts from Broward County’s 17th Judicial Circuit illustrate the exposure pathways Florida juries are weighing today, direct product exposure and take-home contamination carried on work clothing. Older verdicts from Miami-Dade’s 11th Judicial Circuit extend the documented record back to 2015, though their appellate status varies.

Major Florida Mesothelioma Verdicts

Casaretto Estate v. Johnson and Johnson (2025, $20M)

A Broward County jury returned a $20 million verdict on October 28, 2025 in a wrongful death action brought by the family of Dr. Alberto A. Casaretto Sr., a physician who died in 2019 from mesothelioma. Plaintiffs alleged his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos contamination in Johnson and Johnson talc-based Baby Powder. No other asbestos exposure history was identified at trial. The verdict followed approximately seven weeks of proceedings before the 17th Judicial Circuit (docket CACE18028502). Courtroom View Network covered the verdict; the Florida Bar Daily News Summary for October 29, 2025 independently confirmed the $20 million award. Johnson and Johnson stated its intent to appeal; no appellate ruling has been reported through the date of this update.

Cook v. Hennessey Industries (2025, $18M total)

On March 14, 2025, a Broward County jury awarded $18 million in a peritoneal mesothelioma case brought by Denise Guth Cook, 64, whose alleged exposure came from laundering asbestos-contaminated work clothes belonging to her father and brothers when she was a child. Her family members worked in auto repair and used an Ammco brake grinder manufactured by Hennessey Industries. Hennessey was the sole defendant at trial and was apportioned 15% fault, making it responsible for approximately $2.7 million of the total award. The jury assigned the remaining 85% across 15 non-party entities, including auto parts manufacturers and Johnson and Johnson. Trial ran from February 18 to March 14, 2025 (docket CACE24003818). CVN covered the proceedings. No appellate ruling has been reported.

Cook was represented by Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, with Ryan Sweet as lead trial counsel; Hennessey was defended by Edward Slaughter of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. Dr. William Longo, a materials scientist, used transmission electron microscopy to analyze fiber release from the Ammco brake grinder and testified that grinding asbestos brakes four or more times a day exceeded federal exposure standards; Dr. Brent Staggs, a board-certified pathologist, testified on causation, linking Cook’s peritoneal mesothelioma to her childhood exposure.

Batchelor v. Bechtel Corporation (2016, $21M, Partially Reversed)

A Miami-Dade jury entered a $21 million verdict on August 30, 2016 in a case brought by Richard Batchelor, who alleged mesothelioma from asbestos exposure while working as an electrical technician at FPL’s Turkey Point power plant from 1974 to 1980. The jury apportioned 60% fault to Bechtel Corporation and 35% to FPL; Foster Wheeler had settled before the verdict and received 5% fault. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against Bechtel in case 3D16-2624 (decided December 27, 2017; reported at 250 So.3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)), finding insufficient evidence of Bechtel’s possession or control of the premises and reversible error in an adverse-inference instruction. This is a published appellate ruling. The status of FPL’s 35% apportionment is not confirmed in neutral sources reviewed. This case should not be treated as a standing $21 million award.

Font (Torres) v. Union Carbide Corp. (2021, $14M, Source Limitation)

A $14 million verdict was reported in 2021 in a wrongful death case brought by Paula Font on behalf of Luis Torres, who died of mesothelioma allegedly from exposure to asbestos-containing drywall joint compound while working weekend side jobs with his son from 1976 to 1980. The case involved Union Carbide, Georgia Pacific, and Johns Manville, and the 2021 award was the result of a third trial after a complex appellate history. This verdict is reported only in a press release from the Ferraro Law Firm, who served as plaintiff’s counsel. No neutral contemporaneous press coverage (CVN, Law360, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg Law) has been confirmed in sources reviewed. Readers should treat this figure as unverified by an independent source until a neutral record is identified.

Taylor v. Georgia-Pacific (2015, $17M)

A Miami-Dade jury awarded $17 million on August 13, 2015 in a case brought by Roy Taylor, a painting supervisor who alleged mesothelioma from exposure to Georgia-Pacific joint compound containing asbestos supplied by Union Carbide. Taylor’s work occurred in Saudi Arabia in the late 1970s. The jury awarded $13 million to Roy Taylor and $4 million to his wife Suzanne, apportioning 55% fault to Georgia-Pacific (approximately $9.35 million collectible), 15% comparative fault to Taylor, and 30% to his employer as a non-party. Union Carbide was cleared of all liability. Georgia-Pacific reportedly did not plan to appeal. Courtroom View Network and PaintSquare News covered the verdict at the time.

Florida Venue and Jurisdiction Context

Mesothelioma cases in Florida can be filed in the county where the exposure occurred, where the plaintiff resides, or where the defendant does business. The 17th Judicial Circuit (Broward County) and the 11th Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade County) account for the confirmed verdicts in this record. Both circuits have developed institutional familiarity with multi-defendant asbestos cases and complex apportionment disputes involving non-party entities, which is reflected in the jury verdicts above.

Florida follows a pure comparative fault system. Fault can be apportioned among defendants at trial, among non-party entities named by defendants, and against plaintiffs themselves. The Cook verdict illustrates this: Hennessey Industries bore only 15% of the jury’s total fault finding, while 85% was distributed across 15 non-party entities. Understanding how Florida’s apportionment rules interact with multi-defendant asbestos dockets is important for evaluating what any given verdict means in terms of collectible recovery.

Florida’s Filing Deadline

Florida’s statute of limitations for mesothelioma claims depends on the theory of liability and the type of claim.

Personal injury claims, products liability: The four-year window under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(d) applies to personal injury claims grounded in the design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of personal property not permanently incorporated into real property. Mesothelioma claims against asbestos product manufacturers typically fall under this provision. Florida HB 837, signed March 24, 2023, amended the general negligence limitations period at § 95.11(5)(a) from four years to two years for causes of action accruing on or after that date. The products liability provision at § 95.11(3)(d) was not amended by HB 837 and was never the subject of an asbestos-specific carve-out, it applies to all products liability personal injury claims. Note that no Florida court has directly and squarely held that all mesothelioma personal injury claims necessarily fall under § 95.11(3)(d) rather than the amended § 95.11(5)(a) negligence window. Practitioners should confirm the applicable provision for any claim accruing after March 24, 2023.

Wrongful death claims: The two-year statute of limitations at Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(e) governs wrongful death actions in Florida, running from the date of death.

The discovery rule applies: the limitations period begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury and its probable cause. Because mesothelioma has a latency period of decades, the clock typically starts at diagnosis rather than at the time of exposure.

Settlements and the Trust-Fund System

Most mesothelioma cases in Florida, as elsewhere, resolve before trial. Dozens of companies that manufactured or sold asbestos-containing products have established bankruptcy trust funds to compensate people with documented asbestos-related disease. Trust fund claims run on a separate track from litigation and can be pursued at the same time as lawsuits against solvent defendants. The two compensation sources are not mutually exclusive.