ExxonMobil, facing a $725 million jury verdict against it, has asked a judge in Philadelphia to either order a new trial, enter judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict, or reduce the award for a man who alleged his leukemia diagnosis was traceable to his contact with benzene in Exxon’s gasoline to $250,000.
Lawyers from Dallas-based Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel earlier this month convinced the jury in a 10-2 decision that their client, Paul Gill, was entitled to damages from ExxonMobil for its failure to warn consumers about the risk of exposure to benzene that is in its petroleum products, including gasoline. Gill, who worked as a Mobil service station mechanic between 1975 and 1980, was diagnosed in 2019 with acute myeloid leukemia and testified about using gasoline to clean car parts.
That work exposed him to benzene through his skin and inhalation, he alleged.
Patrick Wigle of Waters Kraus, who was a member of the team that took this case to trial, told The Lawbook that from opening statements through closing arguments, the jury was presented with evidence that Gill’s main source of exposure to benzene was gasoline. He called Gill’s diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia the “signature disease of benzene” exposure.
“We focused on the exposure. We focused on the fact that benzene has been a known carcinogen since the end of the 19th century and that it was acknowledged by the American Petroleum Institute, of which Exxon is a member,” said Patrick Wigle of Waters Kraus. “Exxon focused on a couple of things. They take the position, of course, that gasoline is not a carcinogen. Gasoline is their No. 1 product by volume, so they’re there to defend gasoline — not just to defend this case — but to defend gasoline.”
ExxonMobil issued a statement to The Lawbook vowing to challenge the verdict.
“This is an irrational verdict that we will ask the court to reverse before it becomes final,” the company said. “Beyond that request, we plan to exhaust all available appeals and are confident an appellate court will see the verdict for what it is.”
The trial began April 29 and the jury heard about seven full days of evidence before beginning deliberations that lasted one day. Unlike in Texas, trial lawyers in Pennsylvania aren’t permitted to suggest or request that jurors award a specific amount of noneconomic damages.
“We had to take a different approach, which was manifold,” he said. “We started with jury selection by making sure we had on our jury at least one or two jurors who understood money — an economist or accountant — somebody who understands a million doesn’t really buy as much as it used to.”
The panel did include a financial professional, and Wigle said he was one of the jurors who sided with Gill. The panel didn’t include anyone who worked in the oil and gas industry, but one of the 12 seated was an architect who formerly worked as an auto mechanic.
“I asked him ‘Did you wear personal protective equipment when working with solvents’ and he said ‘No, but in hindsight I wish I had,’” Wigle said. “Given those remarks, I was very surprised Exxon didn’t use a peremptory strike to get him off the jury.”
One issue that was raised at trial by Exxon, Wigle said, was that Gill had misused gasoline by using it to clean auto parts in the ’70s and ’80s. Wigle said the team presented the jury with evidence that it was common knowledge people were using gasoline to clean parts and that gasoline was even used as a “household solvent” during that period.
“As a matter of fact, there was an API publication from 1967 that acknowledged mechanics are using gasoline to clean parts, and we had an internal memo from Mobil that was introduced that demonstrated they had the memo from API about mechanics using gasoline,” Wigle said.
That information bolstered the argument that ExxonMobil knew the dangers of benzene in gasoline and “deliberately or purposefully neglected” to warn consumers about it, he said.
The jury heard that doctors had Gill undergo a stem cell transplant to treat his leukemia, which Wigle said is a “grueling experience.” Because of the immunosuppressive treatment required for stem cell transplants, jurors heard Gill developed a secondary cancer in his colon.
“One of the things that was fairly compelling to the jury was we were able to establish that, although Exxon takes this position in court that gasoline is not a carcinogen, their current data sheet for gasoline does say it’s carcinogenic,” Wigle said. “So, in court they say one thing, but the public representation is that it’s a carcinogen and linked to [acute myeloid leukemia], and I think that’s something that angered the jury.”
Gil is also represented by Andrew J. DuPont of Locks Law Firm in Philadelphia and Rajeev Mittal of Waters Kraus.
Exxon is represented by Christopher D. Stofko and Vaughn K. Schultz of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote in Pittsburgh, Theresa A. Folino of the firm’s Philadelphia office and Chad D. Mountain of Maron Marvel in Philadelphia.
Court of Common Pleas Judge Carmella G. Jacquinto presided over the case.
The case number is 1803.