Jury Awards $181M in Asbestos Brake Grinder Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
This case came out of a personal injury lawsuit filed by Denise J. Guth Cook, a resident of both Florida and Illinois, who had been diagnosed with malignant epithelioid mesothelioma in October 2023. She traced her asbestos exposure back to multiple sources over her lifetime, including regular use of cosmetic talc powders and secondary exposure to asbestos dust brought home by her father and late husband, both of whom worked around industrial and automotive products. Among the Defendants, Ms. Cook named Hennessy Industries, LLC, for its role in manufacturing and distributing an AMMCO brake grinder that allegedly contributed to her illness.
The event that led to the dispute
Cook’s legal team argued that Hennessy Industries negligently placed a dangerous product, the AMMCO brake grinder, into the marketplace. The product, used widely in automotive repair shops to resurface brake shoes, released fine asbestos dust into the air when paired with brakes that commonly contained asbestos. Her lawyers claimed the grinder lacked proper warnings and safety features, despite the known dangers of asbestos.
Injury suffered
Doctors diagnosed Ms. Cook with malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, an aggressive and terminal cancer primarily caused by asbestos exposure. Her legal team linked this condition to lifelong, repeated exposure, both direct and indirect. She used talcum powder products daily for decades, many of which allegedly contained asbestos. She also grew up and later lived in homes where her father and husband brought back dust from their work in automotive and industrial environments. That dust, her attorneys argued, often came from working around brakes and machinery that released asbestos particles into the household environment.
Damages sought
The jury awarded $181 million in total damages. This amount included compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, and other permanent impairments. The award reflected the irreversible and fatal nature of her disease and accounted for both past harm and the future she would never live to enjoy.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case proceeded under Florida’s asbestos litigation framework. The Plaintiff’s counsel presented a detailed history of exposure that stretched from her childhood to her later years, using medical records, product histories, and testimony from expert industrial hygienists and toxicologists. They focused heavily on the use of the AMMCO brake grinder in combination with asbestos-laden brake parts, arguing that Hennessy knew or should have known the danger and failed to protect users or those nearby.
Hennessy’s defense focused on causation. They argued that the grinder itself did not contain asbestos and could not have posed a danger unless used with asbestos-containing brake components—products they did not manufacture. Their attorneys contended that Ms. Cook’s illness likely resulted from other sources, including products made or sold by other companies, and that assigning liability to Hennessy would overreach the law’s intent.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Denise J. Guth Cook
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Dawn Marie Besserman
Defendant: Hennessy Industries, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant: Lucia V. Pazos
· Experts for Defendant: Kelley Scribner Tuttle| James Rasmuson| Jeffrey S. Birkner| Eric J. Rasmuson| Charles Redinger
Key Arguments by Counsel
The Plaintiff’s counsel emphasised that Cook’s illness stemmed from years of silent exposure caused by unsafe and improperly labelled products. They argued that Hennessy’s AMMCO brake grinder, when used as intended, generated asbestos dust that reached not just workers, but family members through clothing and household contamination. They pointed to a long history of industry awareness about asbestos hazards and faulted Hennessy for failing to act.
Hennessy’s counsel responded by saying the company never produced or sold asbestos. They maintained that the grinder posed no danger by itself and that Cook’s exposure came from other manufacturers' brake products. They also questioned the strength of the link between the grinder and her condition, suggesting her diagnosis had more to do with generalised environmental or third-party exposure.
Claims Asserted
Negligence
The Plaintiff asserted that Hennessy had a duty to manufacture and market its equipment in a safe manner, especially given known asbestos risks. They claimed that Hennessy breached that duty by failing to provide adequate warnings and safeguards.
Strict Liability
Cook also brought a strict product liability claim, alleging that the brake grinder was defective when sold and unreasonably dangerous when used in a foreseeable way with asbestos brakes.
Defense Arguments
Hennessy denied all claims of defect and negligence. The defense argued the grinder, as designed, was not hazardous, and that any danger came from third-party products. They also challenged the link between Ms. Cook’s illness and any product sold by Hennessy, highlighting numerous other possible sources of asbestos exposure throughout her life. They insisted their grinder had not caused or contributed to her illness and urged the jury not to hold them responsible for other companies’ products.
Jury Verdict
On May 19, 2025, the jury delivered a mixed verdict. They found that Hennessy Industries had been negligent and that this negligence had legally caused injury to Denise J. Guth Cook. However, they did not find the AMMCO brake grinder defective under a strict liability theory.
The jury awarded a total of $181 million in damages, reflecting the severity and irreversible nature of Ms. Cook’s illness.
The verdict confirmed that even non-asbestos products, when used in dangerous environments, could give rise to liability when companies fail to warn or adapt to known hazards.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com