Indiana Mesothelioma Verdicts and Settlements

CDC WONDER data show 1,120 mesothelioma deaths in Indiana between 1999 and 2017, a toll driven by an industrial economy built around steel production, auto manufacturing, and coal-fired power generation. That profile shapes how litigation works here. Workers at the Gary steel corridor or Indianapolis-area auto plants were exposed to asbestos products from dozens of different manufacturers over careers that could span thirty years. Multi-product, multi-defendant exposure means cases regularly draw from both active lawsuits and asbestos trust funds simultaneously.

Major Indiana Mesothelioma Verdicts

Lapointe v. American Art Clay Company (AMACO), $83 Million (2025)

On September 18 and 19, 2025, a jury in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts returned an $83 million verdict against American Art Clay Company, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. The case was brought by Michael A. Lapointe on behalf of the estate of his wife, Judith A. Lapointe, who died in 2021 after a mesothelioma diagnosis. Judith Lapointe’s exposure involved asbestos-contaminated pottery clay used by her mother in Massachusetts from the 1950s through the 1990s.

The jury awarded $10 million for pain and suffering, $13 million for loss of consortium, and $60 million in punitive damages, finding that AMACO’s conduct was malicious, willful, wanton, or reckless.

AMACO stated it would file post-trial motions and, if necessary, pursue an appeal. As of the publication of this page, the verdict is entered but not yet final.

One important distinction: this is a Massachusetts verdict tried in a Massachusetts court involving a Massachusetts plaintiff’s exposure. AMACO’s Indianapolis headquarters does not make it an Indiana case. No Indiana state-court mesothelioma verdict against AMACO has been located in primary sources. The Lapointe verdict is included here because of AMACO’s Indiana identity and the significance of the verdict to understanding the company’s litigation posture.

Indiana’s Asbestos Case Law: Three Decisions That Define Exposure

Indiana has one of the more nuanced statutory frameworks for mesothelioma claims in the Midwest, shaped by three decisions from the Indiana Supreme Court.

Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc. (1989)

In Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 1989), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the 10-year product liability statute of repose was inapplicable to protracted-exposure cases involving an inherently dangerous foreign substance such as asbestos. Because asbestos disease latency can span decades, applying a 10-year repose would bar claims before plaintiffs could reasonably have discovered their injury. Covalt established that the repose did not bar protracted-exposure asbestos claims under the facts before the court, though subsequent decisions complicated this framework.

AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott (2003)

AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott, 785 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. 2003) (docket 02S04-0111-CV-599), narrowed Covalt’s reach. The court held that the asbestos-specific carve-out in Ind. Code § 34-20-3-2(d) exempted from the 10-year repose only defendants who both mined and sold raw commercial asbestos, not manufacturers of asbestos-containing products generally. After AlliedSignal, most asbestos product manufacturers remained subject to the 10-year repose under § 34-20-3-1. That interpretation was later overturned entirely.

Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc. (2016)

Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc., 53 N.E.3d 1160 (Ind. 2016) (docket 49S00-1502-MI-119), reversed AlliedSignal’s framework in a 3-2 decision. The Indiana Supreme Court held that Ind. Code § 34-20-3-2 violated Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution (the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause). Because § 34-20-3-2 contained a non-severability clause in subsection (e), the court voided the entire section. That ruling revived Covalt: as of March 2, 2016, Indiana’s product liability repose does not bar asbestos or mesothelioma claims for any defendant category. The governing limitation is the two-year discovery-rule SOL under § 34-11-2-4.

Why Indiana’s Industrial Profile Shapes Case Outcomes

Indiana’s exposure landscape concentrates in three industries, each with its own litigation profile. The Gary steel corridor produced some of the most complex cases in the region: a steelworker who spent twenty to thirty years at a large integrated mill met asbestos in pipe insulation, gaskets, refractory brick, fireproofing compounds, and brake components, each from a different manufacturer, so cases there routinely name ten or more defendants, many now reduced to bankruptcy trust funds, and combined trust plus settlement recoveries can exceed what any single defendant would owe. Auto workers, especially those in brake and clutch service, had close, repeated contact with asbestos friction materials, which puts a premium on strong employment records and product identification, since many of the responsible brake and gasket makers now exist only as trusts. And at Indiana’s coal-fired power plants, boilermakers, pipefitters, and insulators faced concentrated exposure to asbestos pipe and boiler insulation, cases usually well-supported by job records, union membership rolls, and plant-specific product inventories.

Indiana’s Two-Year Deadline

Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations applies to both personal injury and wrongful death mesothelioma claims, but the two run differently. For personal injury under Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4, the clock starts at diagnosis, or more precisely when the plaintiff knew or reasonably could have discovered the injury and its cause, Indiana’s discovery rule as applied to mesothelioma. For wrongful death under Ind. Code § 34-23-1-1, the two years run from the date of death rather than diagnosis, and Indiana courts have applied that deadline strictly. What no longer applies is the repose bar: after Myers v. Crouse-Hinds (2016), defendants cannot invoke Indiana’s 10-year product liability repose to cut off asbestos claims, leaving the two-year SOL as the only deadline that governs.

Because tracing industrial asbestos exposure requires gathering decades-old employment records, product purchase histories, and union documentation, investigation should begin as early as possible after diagnosis. The two-year window can close faster than it appears.

Settlements and Multi-Trust Recoveries

Most Indiana mesothelioma cases never reach a jury verdict. Defendants prefer to settle rather than risk jury exposure, and asbestos bankruptcy trust funds exist precisely because many manufacturers could not pay mass-tort judgments. A claimant with a strong exposure history in the Gary steel or Indianapolis auto industries may qualify for claims against multiple trusts simultaneously, in addition to settlement negotiations with any defendants still in the tort system.

The total recovery in a given case depends on the quality of exposure evidence, the number of identifiable manufacturers, the plaintiff’s medical history, and how quickly claims are filed and pursued. Trust fund claims typically process within three to twelve months; lawsuit settlements often resolve within twelve to eighteen months.