Judge Increases Exxon Verdict to $816 Million in Cancer Case

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a worker at a Mobil Oil station in Philadelphia between 1975 and 1980. As part of his job, the plaintiff said that he experienced high levels of benzene exposure. The exposure allegedly came from tasks in which the plaintiff cleaned car parts bare-handed using gasoline and various solvents.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia in 2019. He attributed the diagnosis to the years of benzene exposure at his Mobil Oil station job. Acute myeloid leukemia is a form of blood cancer; leukemia cases have been linked to benzene exposure.

The plaintiff argued that he wouldn’t have cleaned the car parts without personal protective equipment if Mobil had warned him about the health risks of benzene exposure.

Benzene is a known carcinogen. The CDC has determined that long-term health effects of benzene exposure can include damage to bone marrow and red blood cells, leading to conditions like anemia and leukemia. Benzene exposure can also affect the immune system and cause excessive bleeding.

On its webpage about the carcinogenic effects of the chemical, the CDC defines “long-term exposure” to benzene as exposure lasting one year or more. The National Institutes of Health warns that there is “no safe level” of benzene exposure.

During the seven-day trial, say plaintiffs’ attorneys, jurors heard evidence from an Exxon Mobil representative that the company had known about the dangers of benzene exposure since 1950 or possibly before. They also heard evidence that Exxon could have used tools like vapor recovery systems and respirators to reduce workers’ exposure to benzene, but they did not do so.

Mobil merged with Exxon in 1998 to form Exxon Mobile Corporation.

The Verdict Increase

The jury verdict entered in May 2024 totaled approximately $725 million. In a 10-2 decision, the jurors held Exxon liable for failing to warn about the harm of benzene exposure. They deemed Exxon’s “defective products” a “substantial contributing factor” to the plaintiff’s cancer.

“ExxonMobil has known for decades that benzene causes cancer, yet they resisted warning the public and taking basic precautions to limit exposure,” plaintiffs’ attorney Patrick Wigle said in a statement. Wigle expressed gratitude that the jury weighed all the presented evidence and chose to hold Exxon accountable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

After the entering of the verdict, Exxon filed a post-trial challenge to the total. A company representative called the verdict “irrational” at the time, affirming the company’s intention to appeal.

In a written order released in September 2024, however, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Carmella Jacquinto rejected Exxon’s challenge. Instead, the judge added approximately $91 million in delay damages.

“The denial of the post-trial motions reinforces the jury’s determination that ExxonMobil must be held responsible for causing Mr. Gill’s injuries,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Andrew DuPont of Locks Law Firm.

Takeaways for Attorneys

Exxon’s attempts to challenge the jury’s verdict are part of an ongoing pattern for the company. Exxon has fought to move many similar cases out of state courts, arguing that such cases are preempted by federal law.

Many of the cases Exxon seeks to challenge allege that the company deceived federal and state regulators about the impact of its products on climate change - driving up adaptation and recovery expenses.

In this case, plaintiffs’ attorneys placed their client’s struggles with cancer and with Exxon within this larger trend. In court filings, plaintiffs’ counsel note that “this pattern of conduct is consistent with ExxonMobil and Mobil Oil’s general disregard for the rights and safety of others.”

Some injuries occur in isolation from other events. Others, however, are part of a pattern of negligence, reckless behavior, or deliberate deception or misrepresentation. Providing this context for juries can help them understand the full impact of the evidence and their verdict thereon.