Maryland Mesothelioma Verdicts and Settlements

Maryland’s asbestos litigation docket is anchored in Baltimore City and Baltimore County courts, where cases tied to Sparrows Point, Port of Baltimore shipyards, and Baltimore-based insulation contractors have produced several of the country’s largest single-plaintiff asbestos and talc verdicts. Recovery typically pairs a Maryland lawsuit with bankruptcy trust claims tracked in the Maryland asbestos trust funds overview.

Notable Maryland Outcomes

The Cherie Craft $1.56 Billion Baltimore Talc Verdict

On December 22, 2025, a Baltimore City Circuit Court jury returned a $1.56 billion verdict for Cherie Craft against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Pecos River Talc. The full case and verdict breakdown is covered in our Johnson & Johnson talc coverage.

The jury awarded $59.84 million in compensatory damages (medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering), $1 billion in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson, and $500 million in punitive damages against Pecos River Talc. Craft, diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in January 2024, alleged decades of exposure from daily use of J&J talc-based baby powder without asbestos warnings. Johnson & Johnson called the verdict “egregious and patently unconstitutional” and announced plans to appeal.

The Craft verdict is the largest single-plaintiff talc mesothelioma award on record and underscores Baltimore City’s role as an active venue for high-value asbestos and talc litigation.

The Busch Steamfitter Verdict and 2019 Court of Appeals Affirmance

On February 16, 2017, a Baltimore City Circuit Court jury awarded William E. Busch, Jr., a retired steamfitter from Pasadena, Maryland, $14,568,528.33 after a three-week trial before Judge Shannon Avery. Case No. 24X16000151 arose from Busch’s 1967 to 1976 exposure to asbestos-containing magnesia block insulation installed by Wallace & Gale in the Loch Raven High School boiler room while Busch worked as a steamfitter for Honeywell, with additional home renovation exposure. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2016 and filed suit on April 11, 2016. The jury broke the award into $10 million in noneconomic damages, $1.25 million in economic damages, $318,528.33 in past medical expenses, and $3 million in loss of consortium damages.

Cross-claims against absent defendants reduced the award to roughly $7,284,264.17 on entry of judgment. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in 2018, and the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed on July 3, 2019 (Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch, No. 58, September Term 2018), holding that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the jury’s inference of Wallace & Gale asbestos work in the boiler room despite no direct product identification.

The Dixon Take-Home Exposure Verdict

In April 2010, a Baltimore City jury returned a $15 million verdict in Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, with $5 million to the estate of Joan Dixon and $10 million to her husband Bernard and four daughters. Joan Dixon was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2008 and died in February 2009 at age 68. Her exposure came from washing asbestos-dusted clothes after her husband’s 1960s and 1970s part-time Ford brake work.

Maryland’s non-economic damages cap reduced the total judgment to approximately $6 million. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed the verdict in 2012, but the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed COSA and reinstated the verdict in 2013 (Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony from Dr. Laura Welch that “every exposure to asbestos is a substantial contributing cause” of mesothelioma. Read in the context of her full testimony on the frequency, intensity, and proximity of exposure, that opinion supported the jury’s finding that Ford’s product was a substantial contributing factor.

Sparrows Point and Shipyard Cases

Sparrows Point cases reflect the breadth of asbestos products present at an integrated steel and shipyard complex. A $342,959.33 judgment was entered in 2000 in favor of steelworker Gust McFadden, who worked at Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point from 1946 to 1983 and died of mesothelioma in January 1994; the underlying jury verdict was returned in 1996 against ACandS, Inc.

In 2007, a Baltimore Circuit Court jury awarded a combined $3.97 million to the families of three steelworkers, Henry Copland ($1.205 million), Dennis Ellison ($760,000), and Elihu Alford ($1.96 million), against General Electric for asbestos-related lung cancer (not mesothelioma) tied to GE crane brakes used at the Sparrows Point mill. GE announced plans to appeal; the appellate disposition is not reflected in retrieved primary sources.

Shipyard cases in Pennsylvania follow similar litigation patterns, with several of the same product defendants appearing in Maryland filings.

Typical Compensation

Maryland mesothelioma cases most often resolve through a combination of jury verdicts, pre-trial settlements, and bankruptcy trust claims. The combined recovery depends on exposure history, the number of solvent and bankrupt defendants identifiable, and the plaintiff’s work and medical records.

Filing Deadlines

Maryland applies a three-year statute of limitations to asbestos personal injury and wrongful death claims. Personal injury claims run three years from diagnosis or reasonable discovery under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 and the discovery rule established in Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70 (1978), which holds that for asbestos-related diseases with long latency, the limitations period begins at discovery of injury and causation rather than at exposure. Wrongful death claims run three years from the date of death under § 3-904. Pennsylvania applies a shorter two-year personal injury limitations period, while New York’s three-year asbestos period under CPLR 214-c runs from discovery of the injury, the same length as Maryland’s window but on a different accrual rule. The complexity of tracing decades-old exposure across multiple employers and products means investigation should begin as early as possible after diagnosis.