Michigan Mesothelioma Verdicts and Settlements

Michigan’s asbestos litigation reflects the state’s industrial identity. Workers from Great Lakes shipping, auto manufacturing, and the construction trades have all been diagnosed with asbestos-related disease. Cases involving Michigan workers and Michigan exposure sites have been filed both in Michigan courts and in other jurisdictions, depending on where defendants are headquartered and where workers had contacts during their careers.

The two confirmed verdicts on this page involve very different industries: merchant marine work on the Great Lakes, and steel production at a Dearborn auto complex. A third case from 2011 involving a Dow Chemical exposure site appears in secondary reporting but carries important caveats addressed below.

Major Michigan Mesothelioma Verdicts

$3.9 Million: LaParl v. Columbia Transport Co. et al. (2012)

On September 7, 2012, a jury in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio awarded $3.9 million to the family of William S. LaParl, a Michigan resident who spent approximately 35 years in the U.S. Merchant Marine working on Great Lakes steamships. LaParl was diagnosed with mesothelioma in July 2006 at age 78 and died the following month.

The jury found four steamship companies liable: Oglebay Norton Company, Columbia Transport Company, Interlake Steamship Company, and Pringle Transit Company. The case, captioned Delores A. LaParl, Personal Representative of the Estate of William S. LaParl v. Columbia Trans. Co. et al., Docket No. CV-08-667485, was tried before Judge Harry Hanna. The case ran independently of MDL-875.

This case illustrates a common pattern: Michigan residents whose careers involved multi-state maritime work can pursue claims in Ohio courts when the defendants’ Great Lakes operations support that venue.

The details on this verdict, including docket number, judge, defendants, and verdict date, come from a plaintiff-firm press release. MesoWatch did not locate independent neutral press coverage confirming this result, and post-trial and appellate status are not confirmed from any source.

$1.8 Million: Parrott v. Ferro Engineering Division (2018)

In June 2018, a Wayne County, Michigan jury unanimously found Ferro Engineering Division of ON Marine Services Co. LLC guilty of negligence and wanton misconduct and awarded $1.8 million to the family of James Parrott. On April 23, 2018, the judge entered a final judgment of $1,926,618.92.

Parrott worked as a steel worker at Ford’s Rouge Plant in Dearborn, Michigan for approximately 30 years. He was diagnosed with lung cancer roughly 15 years after retiring and died in July 2017 at age 70. The product at issue was a ready-mix cement used to pour molten steel, sold by the Cleveland-based Ferro Engineering division. According to trial reporting, the defendant allegedly knew since 1965 that its products caused cancer and failed to warn workers.

Attorney James Bedortha represented the Parrott family. Legal Newsline and Lexis Legal News/Mealey’s both reported the verdict as the largest lung cancer asbestos verdict in Michigan history at the time.

One distinction matters here: this case involved lung cancer, not mesothelioma, and the defendant was Ferro Engineering Division of ON Marine Services Co. LLC, not Ford Motor Company. Post-trial and appellate status are not confirmed from any source MesoWatch reviewed.

$9 Million Verdict: Henderson Estate v. Dow Chemical (2011), Verdict Reversed on Appeal

In March 2011, a Dallas County, Texas jury awarded $9 million to the estate of Robert Henderson, a contract insulation worker who died of mesothelioma. The jury found Dow Chemical 30% liable, which translated to a $2.64 million judgment against Dow, with Alcoa responsible for the remainder.

This verdict does not stand. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against Dow, and the Texas Supreme Court in Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 13-0175 (Tex. 2015), affirmed the reversal. The court held that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code barred the claim because Henderson was an independent contractor and the statutory evidentiary burden was not met. The final outcome is a take-nothing judgment for Dow Chemical.

One geographic correction matters here. Henderson’s exposure occurred at Dow Chemical’s Freeport, Texas plant, not at a Michigan facility. The case appears in Michigan litigation coverage because Dow Chemical is headquartered in Midland, Michigan and because the underlying asbestos products were sold across multiple states. The exposure site itself was in Texas.

MesoWatch includes this case to correct its prior presentation without the reversal and without the correct exposure location. It does not represent a recovery for mesothelioma claimants.

Key Jurisdictional Doctrine in Michigan

The Discovery Rule: Larson v. Johns-Manville (1986)

Michigan’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three years under MCL § 600.5805. In asbestos cases, the clock starts when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the disease, not when exposure occurred. The Michigan Supreme Court established this discovery rule in Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 427 Mich. 301; 399 NW2d 1 (1986), noting the typical latency period between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma onset is 25 to 40 years. Without the discovery rule, the three-year window would close long before any diagnosis.

For wrongful death claims, the window is not unlimited. Under Hawkins v. Regional Medical Laboratories, P.C., 415 Mich. 420 (1982), heirs cannot file a wrongful death action if the decedent’s personal injury claim was already time-barred at death. Families shouldn’t assume death restarts the limitations period.

Take-Home Exposure: Miller v. Ford Motor Co. (2007)

Michigan is one of the more restrictive states on take-home asbestos liability. In Miller v. Ford Motor Co., 479 Mich. 498 (2007), the Michigan Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeals and held that Ford owed no duty to a household member who was never on Ford property and was exposed only through asbestos carried home on a worker’s clothing. The court cited lack of foreseeability during the exposure period (1954 to 1965), the absence of a special off-site relationship, and policy concerns about open-ended liability.

States including California, Alabama, and Washington have recognized broader take-home duties. Michigan has not. Family members exposed solely through a worker’s clothing face a steeper legal path in Michigan than in those jurisdictions.

Michigan’s Three-Year Deadline and the Discovery Rule

Michigan’s personal injury statute of limitations is three years from accrual. MCL § 600.5805 sets the deadline; Larson v. Johns-Manville sets the accrual rule (diagnosis awareness, not exposure date). Hawkins v. Regional Medical Laboratories establishes that a time-barred personal injury claim cannot be revived through a wrongful death filing.

While three years is longer than the two-year window in some neighboring states, the time required to investigate exposure history across a career, identify all responsible defendants, and prepare a claim is substantial. Attorneys who handle Michigan asbestos cases consistently recommend consulting counsel promptly after diagnosis rather than waiting to see how a diagnosis develops.

Settlements and Michigan Trust-Fund Claims

Verdicts are the visible tip of Michigan mesothelioma litigation. Most cases resolve through settlements that are never publicly disclosed. Many families also recover from asbestos bankruptcy trust funds established by manufacturers whose products were used in Michigan’s auto plants, Great Lakes shipping operations, and construction industry.

Companies that contributed asbestos products to Michigan workplaces, from friction materials to pipe insulation to fireproofing, have established trusts as part of their bankruptcy reorganizations. An attorney with experience in Michigan asbestos litigation can identify which trusts apply to a specific exposure history and file claims that run alongside or independently of a lawsuit. Trust fund claims don’t require proving a case to a jury, and they can resolve on a separate timeline from litigation.