Menssen v. Pneumo Abex Corp. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                            ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
    Appellate Court
    Menssen v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 
    2012 IL App (4th) 100904
    Appellate Court            JAYNE MENSSEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PNEUMO ABEX
    Caption                    CORPORATION, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, METROPOLITAN LIFE
    INSURANCE COMPANY, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., and
    HONEYW ELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendan t s -
    Appellants.–JAYNE MENSSEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HONEYWELL
    INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
    District & No.             Fourth District
    Docket Nos. 4-10-0904, 4-10-0921 cons.
    Filed                      August 31, 2012
    Held                       In actions alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
    (Note: This syllabus       misrepresent or suppress the hazards of asbestos exposure, defendants’
    constitutes no part of     motions for judgment n.o.v. were improperly denied, since, pursuant to
    the opinion of the court   Rodarmel, plaintiff’s evidence was not sufficient to prove such a
    but has been prepared      conspiracy.
    by the Reporter of
    Decisions for the
    convenience of the
    reader.)
    Decision Under             Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County, No. 09-L-71, the Hon.
    Review                     G. Michael Prall, Judge, presiding.
    Judgment                   Reversed.
    Counsel on                Reagan W. Simpson, of King & Spalding LLP, of Austin, Texas, Amy
    Appeal                    Eikel, of King & Spalding, of Houston, Texas, Robert W. Scott, of
    Swain, Hartshorn & Scott, and Karen L. Kendall and Craig L. Unrath,
    both of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, both of Peoria, Craig H.
    Zimmerman, Colleen E. Baime, and Michael W. Weaver, all of
    McDermott Will & Emery LLP, of Chicago, Dennis J. Dobbels, of
    Polsinelli, Shalton, Welte & Suelthaus, P.C., of Edwardsville, and Nicole
    C. Behnen and Luke J. Mangan, both of Polsinelli, Shalton, Welte &
    Suelthaus, P.C., of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellants.
    Lisa Corwin and James Wylder, both of Wylder Corwin Kelly LLP, of
    Bloomington, for appellee.
    Panel                     JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with
    opinion.
    Presiding Justice Turner specially concurred in the judgment, with
    opinion.
    Justice Cook dissented, with opinion.
    OPINION
    ¶1           In March 2009, plaintiff, Jayne Menssen, sued defendants, Pneumo Abex, LLC, the
    successor of Pneumo Abex Corporation (Abex), and Honeywell International, Inc.
    (Honeywell), the successor of the Bendix Corporation (Bendix), among others, to recover
    damages for a malignancy caused by exposure to asbestos that occurred while Menssen was
    employed at the Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (UNARCO). Menssen’s suit alleged
    that Abex, Honeywell, and UNARCO entered into a civil conspiracy to (1) falsely assert that
    exposure to asbestos was safe and (2) suppress information about the harmful effects of
    asbestos.
    ¶2           In February 2010, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Menssen and against Abex and
    Honeywell, awarding Menssen $3.5 million in compensatory damages, as well as punitive
    damages of $4.37 million against Abex and $10 million against Honeywell.
    ¶3           Abex and Honeywell appeal, alleging numerous deficiencies. Because we view this
    court’s decision in Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex, L.L.C., 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    , as dispositive, we address only the claim raised by Abex and Honeywell that the
    trial court erred by denying their respective motions for a judgment notwithstanding the
    verdict (judgment n.o.v.). Consistent with our decision in Rodarmel, we reverse the court’s
    judgment because the evidence Menssen presented was insufficient to prove Abex or
    -2-
    Honeywell conspired with other corporations to misrepresent or suppress the health hazards
    of asbestos exposure.
    ¶4                                      I. BACKGROUND
    ¶5         From 1967 to 1969, UNARCO, a manufacturer and distributor of asbestos and asbestos
    products, employed Menssen. In her March 2009 complaint, Menssen claimed that (1) during
    her employment at UNARCO, she inhaled asbestos fibers and (2) she was exposed to
    asbestos products manufactured by, among others, Abex and Honeywell. Menssen alleged
    that this exposure later caused her to suffer from pleural mesothelioma–a malignancy of the
    membrane that surrounds the chest and lungs. Although her March 2009 complaint did not
    identify UNARCO as a defendant, Menssen alleged that UNARCO conspired with Abex and
    Honeywell to (1) falsely assert that exposure to asbestos was safe and (2) suppress
    information about the harmful effects of asbestos. Menssen alleged further that this
    conspiracy and the subsequent conduct in furtherance thereof proximately caused her illness.
    ¶6         Although Menssen was never employed by Abex or Honeywell, she introduced evidence
    to show that the actions Abex and Honeywell, as well as their predecessors, took with regard
    to their respective asbestos operations were parallel to–that is, consistent with–the conduct
    taken by the other alleged coconspirators. The theory underlying Menssen’s civil-conspiracy
    claim was that Abex and Honeywell conspired with other corporations in the asbestos
    industry to misrepresent and suppress the health hazards of asbestos exposure. In particular,
    Menssen posited that despite knowing the dangers of asbestos exposure, Abex and
    Honeywell (1) sold products containing asbestos without health-hazard-warning labels and
    (2) failed to adequately protect their employees from exposure to asbestos. With regard to
    Abex, Menssen also claimed that it conspired with eight other corporations in the asbestos
    industry to unlawfully conceal information about the carcinogenic effect of asbestos from a
    scientific study.
    ¶7         At a trial that began in January 2010, Menssen presented evidence consistent with her
    claims, the majority of which was factually indistinguishable in any appreciable measure
    from the evidence presented in Rodarmel–a case this court decided involving the same
    claims against Abex and Honeywell, which we later discuss at length. Following the
    presentation of that evidence, the jury (1) returned a verdict in Menssen’s favor and against
    Abex and Honeywell and (2) awarded Menssen $3.5 million in compensatory damages, as
    well as punitive damages of $4.37 million against Abex and $10 million against Honeywell.
    ¶8         In April 2010, Abex and Honeywell filed separate posttrial motions for judgment n.o.v.,
    which the trial court later denied.
    ¶9         This appeal followed.
    ¶ 10                                  II. ANALYSIS
    ¶ 11                            A. Civil Conspiracy Defined
    ¶ 12      A civil conspiracy is a “combination of two or more persons for the purpose of
    accomplishing by concerted action either an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by
    -3-
    unlawful means.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas
    Corp., 
    188 Ill. 2d 102
    , 133, 
    720 N.E.2d 242
    , 258 (1999). For recovery under a civil
    conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must prove an agreement and a tortious act committed in
    furtherance of the agreement. 
    Id. The agreement
    must be knowingly and intentionally made.
    
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 133-34
    , 720 N.E.2d at 258. A “defendant who innocently performs
    an act which happens to fortuitously further the tortious purpose of another is not liable under
    the theory of civil conspiracy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 134
    , 720 N.E.2d at 258.
    ¶ 13       Because a civil conspiracy is almost never susceptible to direct proof, the conspiracy is
    usually established through circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence.
    
    Id. Although evidence
    of parallel conduct by the alleged conspirators may serve as
    circumstantial evidence of a civil conspiracy, parallel-conduct evidence is insufficient, by
    itself, to establish the existence of an agreement to commit the civil conspiracy. 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 135
    , 720 N.E.2d at 259.
    ¶ 14                                  B. Standard of Review
    ¶ 15        We review de novo a trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment n.o.v. 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 132
    , 720 N.E.2d at 257. “[V]erdicts ought to be directed and judgments n.o.v.
    entered only in those cases in which all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most
    favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors [the] movant that no contrary verdict
    based on that evidence could ever stand.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rodarmel,
    
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 86, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 16        However, a ruling on a judgment n.o.v. also implicates the clear and convincing
    evidentiary standard. Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 87, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . “[T]he
    evidence must be clear and convincing if a conspiracy is to be proved solely by
    circumstantial evidence.” Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 88, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . This
    standard applies to judgments n.o.v. as well as directed verdicts. Rodarmel, 2011 IL App
    (4th) 100463, ¶ 87, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 17               C. The Evidence Presented in Rodarmel and the Jury’s Verdict
    ¶ 18        Although Abex and Honeywell raise in their appeal numerous alleged deficiencies in the
    trial court proceedings, we address only the claim that the court erred by denying the separate
    motions Abex and Honeywell filed for judgment n.o.v. As previously noted, because we
    view our decision in Rodarmel as dispositive, we first discuss the evidence presented in that
    case.
    ¶ 19    1. The Parallel Conduct Evidence Presented To Show a Civil Conspiracy Existed
    ¶ 20       In Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 4, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    , the plaintiffs sued the
    defendants, Abex and Honeywell, alleging that the defendants conspired with other
    corporations to (1) falsely assert that asbestos exposure was safe and (2) withhold
    information about the harmful effects of asbestos. The majority of the evidence the plaintiffs
    -4-
    presented to show this civil conspiracy concerned circumstantial evidence to show parallel
    conduct–that is, the actions each defendant took with regard to its respective asbestos
    operations mirrored, or was in concert with, the actions of other alleged coconspirators.
    Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 8, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 21       The plaintiffs’ theory was that by (1) concealing the dangers of asbestos from their
    employees and (2) fraudulently representing that the air inside their factories was safe, the
    defendants acted in conformity with a conspiratorial agreement they had with other
    corporations that were financially invested in promoting asbestos. Rodarmel, 2011 IL App
    (4th) 100463, ¶ 8, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . In support of that theory, the plaintiffs presented the
    following circumstantial evidence: (1) in 1968, Johns-Manville, the exclusive supplier of
    asbestos to Bendix (Honeywell’s predecessor), informed Bendix that its asbestos shipments
    would henceforth carry the warning “ ‘inhalation of this material over long periods may be
    harmful’ ” (Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 10, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ); (2) shortly after
    placing warning labels on its asbestos shipments, Johns-Manville sent Bendix a position
    paper that identified asbestosis (a scarring of the lungs), lung cancer, and mesothelioma as
    hazards resulting from asbestos exposure (Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 11, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ); (3) from 1930 through 1934, Albert L. Humphrey, chairman of the
    Westinghouse Air-Brake Company, was on the board of directors of Bendix and the
    American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company (Abex’s predecessor) (Rodarmel, 2011 IL App
    (4th) 100463, ¶ 13, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ); (4) from 1959 through 1963, John D. Biggers,
    chairman of the Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, was on the board of directors of
    Bendix and Johns-Manville (Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 15, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    );
    and (5) Abex, Bendix, Johns-Manville, and other corporations were members of the Friction
    Materials Standard Institute (FMSI), a trade organization created in 1948 to resolve issues
    regarding automobile brakes (Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 14, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ).
    ¶ 22                   2. The Additional Evidence Presented Against Abex
    ¶ 23       In addition to the aforementioned evidence presented against Abex and Honeywell, the
    plaintiffs also introduced evidence that the American Brake Shoe and Foundry
    Company–along with eight other corporations in the asbestos industry–pledged to equally
    underwrite the cost of scientific experiments with asbestos dust. Rodarmel, 2011 IL App
    (4th) 100463, ¶ 24, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . (Honeywell did not sponsor or participate in this study.)
    The cosponsors agreed that Dr. LeRoy U. Gardner, director of the Saranac Laboratory for the
    Study of Tuberculous, would perform the study, noting that the stated purpose of the asbestos
    dusting experiments was to determine the “cause and effects of asbestosis.” Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 18, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . The plaintiffs claimed that Abex subsequently
    conspired with its cosponsors to unlawfully conceal the carcinogenic effects of asbestos from
    the published version of Gardner’s study. Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 118, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 24            3. The Jury’s Verdict and the Defendants’ Posttrial Motions
    ¶ 25      The jury awarded the plaintiffs $2 million in compensatory damages against the
    -5-
    defendants, as well as punitive damages of $100,000 against Abex and $400,000 against
    Honeywell. Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 4, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 26       Abex and Honeywell later filed motions for judgment n.o.v., which the trial court later
    denied. Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 5, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 27         D. This Court’s Parallel-Conduct Analysis in Rodarmel and Application
    of That Analysis to the Facts of This Case
    ¶ 28       In Rodarmel, the sole question this court addressed–the same question before us in this
    case–was whether the trial court erred by denying the posttrial motions Abex and Honeywell
    filed for a judgment n.o.v. Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 5, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    Because the plaintiffs in Rodarmel did not have direct evidence that established a civil
    conspiracy, we noted that the circumstantial evidence the plaintiffs presented had to satisfy
    the clear and convincing standard of review. Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 100,
    
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . Applying that standard, this court analyzed the evidence the plaintiff
    presented against Honeywell by parsing it into the following categories: (1) Bendix’s buyer-
    seller relationship with Johns-Manville, (2) Bendix’s position paper and further
    communications with Johns-Manville concerning asbestos, (3) Bendix’s membership in the
    FMSI trade organization, and (4) Bendix’s shared board of directors. 
    Id. ¶ 29
          Relying on the supreme court’s decision in McClure, this court rejected Rodarmel’s
    claim that the evidence presented was clear and convincing proof that established
    Honeywell’s participation in a civil conspiracy. Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    ,
    ¶¶ 106-17, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . In particular, we stated the following: (1) the inference of a
    conspiratorial agreement cannot be convincingly established by a buyer-seller relationship
    (Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 106, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ); (2) Bendix’s purchase of
    asbestos from Johns-Manville was inherent in Rodarmel’s parallel-conduct claim that
    Honeywell failed to adequately protect its employees from exposure to asbestos (Rodarmel,
    
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 107, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ); (3) the sharing of information
    concerning asbestos among corporations in the asbestos industry does not provide clear and
    convincing evidence of a civil conspiracy (Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 109, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ); (4) “a conspiratorial agreement could not be inferred from membership in a
    trade organization” (Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 113, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    ), and (5)
    inferring a civil conspiracy from a shared board director would be speculation, and liability
    based on such a dubious foundation “ ‘is contrary to tort principles in Illinois’ ” (Rodarmel,
    
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 117, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    (quoting 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 152
    , 720
    N.E.2d at 267)).
    ¶ 30       In so concluding, this court declined to follow our decision in Dukes v. Pneumo Abex
    Corp., 
    386 Ill. App. 3d 425
    , 
    900 N.E.2d 1128
    (2008). Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    ,
    ¶ 118, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . In 
    Dukes, 386 Ill. App. 3d at 440
    , 900 N.E.2d at 1140, a different
    panel of this district acknowledged the supreme court’s holding in McClure that more than
    parallel conduct was needed to prove a conspiracy. The Dukes court then proceeded to
    discuss the same four categories of evidence that the plaintiff presented over and above
    parallel conduct, holding that this additional evidence satisfied McClure. Dukes, 386 Ill. App.
    -6-
    3d at 
    445-46, 900 N.E.2d at 1144
    .
    ¶ 31        In rejecting the analysis in Dukes, we stated, as follows:
    [W]e conclude that Dukes was incorrect in holding that the four items of additional
    evidence, over and above parallel conduct, justified the denial of Honeywell’s motion for
    a judgment [n.o.v.] in that case. In that respect, we decline to follow Dukes. And because
    plaintiffs point to no additional evidence other than that which we have discussed in
    connection with Dukes, we hold that Honeywell likewise was entitled a judgment [n.o.v.]
    in the present case.” Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 118, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 32        Although the majority of the evidence presented in this case was identical to the evidence
    presented in Rodarmel, Menssen posits that “[t]he record in this appeal is not the same as the
    record the appellate court was presented with in Rodarmel.” We agree and note that Menssen
    offered the following additional evidence against Honeywell, which was not considered in
    Rodarmel: (1) in 1958, the State of New York Department of Labor promulgated “Rule No.
    12” entitled, “Control of Air Contaminants in Factories,” which listed asbestos dust in
    quantities greater than five million particles per cubic foot as a “dangerous air contaminant”
    (Bendix owned a factory located in Troy, New York, at that time.); (2) a 1959 advertisement,
    in which Bendix challenged the “jobber, rebuilder or dealer,” to “do [its] part to protect the
    public by stocking only ‘name brand’ brake lining[s]–such as that made by Bendix or one of
    the other reputable manufacturers” (emphasis in original); (3) documents that showed the
    composition of dust at certain Bendix facilities prior to plaintiff’s exposure; (4) a 1968 article
    published in Bendix Today, which contained (a) information on the quantity of brake linings
    produced at Bendix and (b) photographs documenting the conditions at the Bendix facilities;
    (5) in 1969, Bendix manufactured and sold “asbestos compound;” (6) a March 1972 Bendix
    internal memorandum entitled, “Third Visit by OSHA [(Occupational Health and Safety
    Administration)] to [Friction Materials Division]–Tennessee,” which revealed that Bendix
    anticipated a citation for exceeding the “[five-]fibers-per-milliliter” maximum asbestos air
    quality standard imposed by OSHA; (7) sometime after 1972, Bendix distributed a booklet
    authored by Johns-Manville entitled, “What Every Employee Should Know
    about...ASBESTOS” that informed its employees about the dangers of asbestos; (8) a 1975
    report found in Bendix’s files, noting that no conclusive proof existed regarding a safe
    asbestos exposure level; (9) a 1983 Bendix internal memorandum, which identified questions
    and concerns from its employees regarding why they were not informed about or protected
    against the dangers of asbestos exposure; and (10) documents dated after implementation of
    OSHA that showed Bendix’s policies and procedure to implement the new standards.
    ¶ 33        In addition to the evidence Menssen presented, this case involves exposure dates from
    1967 to 1969, more than 10 years after the plaintiffs in Rodarmel were exposed. Despite
    Menssen’s urging, however, we do not find the additional evidence or the expanded time
    frame clearly and convincingly shows a conspiratorial agreement among corporations in the
    asbestos industry. Simply put, the additional evidence merely shows the continued efforts
    Bendix engaged in–on its own accord and initiative–to misrepresent and suppress the dangers
    of asbestos exposure despite the increasing cascade of medical and scientific literature to the
    contrary.
    -7-
    ¶ 34       Because we (1) agree with Rodarmel’s characterization of the evidence presented in that
    case, which includes our rejection of Dukes, and (2) find that the additional evidence offered
    by plaintiff was insufficient to prove Honeywell entered into a conspiratorial agreement with
    other corporations to suppress or misrepresent the dangers of asbestos, we conclude that
    Honeywell was entitled to a judgment n.o.v.
    ¶ 35        E. The Additional Evidence Menssen Presented Against Abex Regarding
    the Saranac Laboratory Dusting Experiments
    ¶ 36       As previously explained, in addition to the evidence of the sharing of a director–evidence
    that we have earlier considered and rejected with regard to Honeywell–Menssen also
    presented evidence that Abex conspired with its cosponsors to unlawfully conceal
    information about the carcinogenic effects of asbestos from the published version of
    Gardner’s study. In particular, Menssen presented the following pertinent evidence.
    ¶ 37                   1. The Evolution of the Dusting Experiments Conducted
    by the Saranac Laboratory
    ¶ 38       On November 19, 1936, a meeting of brake lining manufacturers was held in New York
    City. At that meeting, nine corporations in the asbestos industry voluntarily pledged to
    equally fund the cost of scientific experiments, which would study the effects of asbestos
    dust exposure. The following day, the sponsors of the study, which included UNARCO,
    Abex, and Johns-Manville, entered into a written agreement to that effect. (Honeywell
    neither sponsored nor participated in the study.) The written agreement identified Gardner
    as the scientist in charge of the experiments.
    ¶ 39        That same day, Vandiver Brown, general counsel for Johns-Manville, sent Gardner a
    letter on behalf of the cosponsors, authorizing him to “commence the contemplated
    experiments with asbestos dust for the purposes of determining more definitely the causes
    and effects of asbestosis.” In his letter, Brown conveyed the following limitation upon the
    results of the study:
    “It is our further understanding that the results obtained will be considered the
    property of [the corporate cosponsors], who will determine whether, to what extent, and
    in what manner they shall be made public. In the event it is deemed desirable that the
    results be made public, the manuscript of your study will be returned to us for approval
    prior to publication.”
    On November 23, 1936, Gardner agreed to conduct the study subject to the sponsors’
    conditions. Brown later informed the other sponsors of Gardner’s approval.
    ¶ 40        In the years that followed, Gardner provided the sponsors annual reports, outlining the
    progress of the scientific experiments. In February 1943, Gardner sent a letter to Brown,
    informing him that he had “at last succeeded in analyzing most of [the] voluminous
    experimental data and assessing the results.” Attached to Gardner’s letter was a report
    entitled, “Outline of Proposed Monograph on Asbestos,” which explained that although “[n]o
    experiments were particularly designed to elucidate this point, *** certain evidence suggests
    -8-
    that asbestos may actually favor development of tumors in susceptible species.” Gardner
    noted that 8 out of 11 mice that inhaled long fiber asbestos for 15 to 24 months developed
    malignant tumors. Gardner cautioned, however, as follows:
    “These observations are suggestive but not conclusive evidence of a cancer stimulating
    action by asbestos dust. They are open to several criticisms. The strain of mice was not
    the same in the asbestos experiment as in many of the others cited; apparently the former
    were unusually susceptible. Not enough animals survived in the dust for longer than the
    15 months apparently necessary to produce many tumors. There were no unexposed
    controls of the same strain and age and no similar controls exposed to other dusts. It is
    hoped that this experiment can be repeated under properly controlled conditions to
    determine whether asbestos actually favors cancer of the lung.”
    Although Gardner conveyed that “[t]he question of cancer susceptibility now seems more
    significant than I had previously imagined,” he recommended that any references to the
    incidences of cancerous tumors should be omitted from the final version of the study.
    Gardner then conveyed his intent to later provide a formal comprehensive report on the
    experiments.
    ¶ 41       In March 1943, Gardner applied for a federal research grant from the National Cancer
    Institute to conduct a properly controlled experiment on asbestos dust and lung cancer. In his
    application, Gardner described the results of his previous study but admitted that the “results
    with asbestos mean[t] nothing” because the experiments (1) were not intended to study the
    carcinogenic effects of asbestos and (2) lacked the proper controls.
    ¶ 42       In January 1944, the Committee on Cooperation in Cancer Research, which evaluated
    Gardner’s $10,000 grant request, consulted with Dr. James J. Murphy, a committee member
    who–at that time–had the most experience in pulmonary cancer research. Murphy opined as
    follows:
    “This is the first time I have seen this application. I think it is bringing a very big gun
    to bear on a subject that probably will be settled in a very short time with a very slight
    expenditure of money. I think it is quite likely that you can induce cancer of the lung in
    mice in the strains that have genetic tendency for cancer of the lung. It is very easy to do.
    I believe the question can be settled in one comprehensive experiment, with a modest
    outlay of cost. It is a problem you can do here, for instance, at a cost of perhaps $20 to
    $30. I think we are hardly justified in appropriating $10,000 for it in a laboratory that
    isn’t experienced in cancer research or in handling this particular type of material.”
    Thereafter, the committee denied Gardner’s application, noting that the lack of genetic and
    proper clinical controls cast doubt on Gardner’s belief that prolonged asbestos exposure
    causes cancer.
    ¶ 43       In 1946, Gardner died before completing the final report on the asbestos dust study. In
    September 1948, Saranac Laboratories prepared the final report of Gardner’s scientific
    findings, which it delivered to Brown at Johns-Manville. The report mentioned the tumorous
    mice but noted a contradiction in Gardner’s experimental notes where he referred to the
    tumors as “adenomas,” benign, or nonmalignant tumors. (Adenomas are defined as a benign
    tumor of glandlike structure.)
    -9-
    ¶ 44        In October 1948, Brown forwarded the final report from the Saranac Laboratory to the
    rest of the sponsoring companies. Brown requested that the report be treated with “the
    upmost confidence” and that it not be made available to anyone outside the sponsoring
    companies. Brown suspected that Saranac Laboratory desired to publish the study results,
    which Brown noted was “desirable from the point of view of the industry,” provided “some
    of the speculative comments [were] omitted.” Brown invited the sponsoring companies to
    a luncheon in Johns-Manville’s boardroom to discuss whether the report should be revised
    before publication. Brown suggested that if a sponsoring corporation could not attend the
    luncheon, it designate a representative from another sponsoring corporation to act on its
    behalf.
    ¶ 45        On November 3, 1948, Dr. L.E. Hamlin, the former medical director for the American
    Brake Shoe and Foundry Company (now known as Abex), wrote a letter on the contents of
    the final report and the question of whether to make revisions before publication. In his letter,
    Hamlin, inferring Brown’s concerns about the legal ramifications of the final unrevised
    version of the asbestos study, “confessed” that he did not observe “anything in the report in
    its present form which need cause undue concern.” Brown explained as follows:
    “I feel that since most of the basic facts with the exception of the more detailed
    studies mentioned in the report are already known and have been published in other
    studies on asbestos, no unfavorable reaction need be anticipated. I think the idea of
    reviewing the manuscript prior to publication is a good one in order to achieve mutual
    understanding with Saranac, but I feel that this can be accomplished quite satisfactorily
    without my presence.”
    Because Hamlin was unable to attend the luncheon, he requested Brown represent American
    Brake Shoe Company “in connection with the decisions to be made.” Five days later, W.T.
    Kelly, Jr., executive vice president of American Brakebloc Division (a division of American
    Brake Shoe and Foundry Company) forwarded Hamlin’s recommendations to Brown with
    a letter requesting Brown act as its representative at the luncheon.
    ¶ 46        On November 12, 1948, Brown informed Kelly by letter that the sponsoring companies
    unanimously voted to delete references to cancer and tumors from the final published report
    of the Saranac asbestos study because (1) the experiments were not devised to determine the
    incidence of cancer as a result of asbestos dust exposure, (2) Gardner previously indicated
    that the asbestos experiments should be correctly performed in a separate study, (3) Gardner
    recommended that the question of cancer susceptibility should be deleted from the study, and
    (4) the study unintentionally used a strain of mice susceptible to developing tumors. Brown
    also requested that Kelly return the copy of the unrevised final study he possessed because
    the sponsoring corporations agreed it would be “unwise to have any copies of the draft report
    outstanding if the final report is to be different in any substantial respect.” Dr. Phillip C.
    Pratt, a pathologist retained by Abex who assisted in the preparation of the final report,
    agreed that it would have been inappropriate to include the study in the final report because
    of the lack of a control group.
    ¶ 47        In January 1951, Saranac Laboratory published its reports of Gardner’s asbestos dust
    experiments in the American Medical Association Archives of Industrial Hygiene and
    -10-
    Occupational Medicine. The published version deleted (1) all references to tumors and
    malignancies in mice, and (2) the section that identified the contradiction between Gardner’s
    outline and his experimental notes.
    ¶ 48                               2. The Application of Rodarmel
    ¶ 49       We note that the plaintiffs in Rodarmel also presented evidence to support their
    claim–the same claim Menssen makes in this case–that Abex conspired with its cosponsors
    to unlawfully conceal the carcinogenic effects of asbestos from the published version of
    Gardner’s study. We note further that a comparison of the evidence presented in Rodarmel
    regarding those experiments does not deviate in any meaningful respect from the evidence
    presented in this case on the same issue.
    ¶ 50       In rejecting the argument that the asbestos study showed Abex entered into a
    conspiratorial agreement, this court stated the following:
    “In *** suppressing the cancer references, the sponsors could have done the right
    thing for the wrong reason. Even if the tumors in the mice scientifically proved nothing,
    publicizing them could have been prejudicial to Johns-Manville’s business, or Johns-
    Manville could have had that fear. So, yes, it is an eminently reasonable inference that
    Johns-Manville, Abex, and other companies were concerned more about their own skin
    than about scientific integrity. The question, though, is not whether Abex’s motives were
    pure. Instead, the question is whether Abex agreed ‘to commit an unlawful act or a lawful
    act in an unlawful manner.’ [Citation.] As far as we can see, it was not against the law,
    and it was not tortious, for the financing corporations to conceal the occurrence of tumors
    in a small group of mice if (1) the tumors were not scientific evidence of a relationship
    between asbestos and cancer and (2) it was unclear that any of the tumors were in fact
    cancerous. Granted, from the vantage of hindsight, we now know it is a scientific fact
    that asbestos causes cancer in humans. But it does not necessarily follow that asbestos
    caused the tumors (benign or malignant) in the eight or nine mice at Saranac Laboratory,
    some of which were genetically prone to develop tumors under any conditions. Unless
    Abex had notice that the tumorous mice were scientific evidence that asbestos caused
    cancer, Abex did not enter into a conspiratorial agreement by agreeing to conceal
    information about the tumorous mice–because concealing the information was not an
    unlawful or tortious act. It cannot be unlawful to hide information that is devoid of
    significance: information that, as Murphy put it, was ‘not of any tremendous value.’ ”
    Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 124, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    ¶ 51       We adhere to our analysis in Rodarmel and conclude that, without more, Menssen failed
    to provide evidence that Abex agreed with other companies to suppress or misrepresent the
    health hazards of asbestos.
    ¶ 52       Accordingly, as we determined with regard to Honeywell, we conclude that Abex was
    entitled to a judgment n.o.v. because the additional evidence offered by plaintiff was
    insufficient to prove Abex entered into a conspiratorial agreement with other corporations
    to suppress or misrepresent the dangers of asbestos.
    -11-
    ¶ 53                                   III. CONCLUSION
    ¶ 54       For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
    ¶ 55       Reversed.
    ¶ 56       PRESIDING JUSTICE TURNER, specially concurring.
    ¶ 57       While I concur in this opinion, I write separately to note I specially concurred in
    Rodarmel because I found unnecessary the majority’s analysis on whether the evidence was
    sufficient to find Honeywell and Abex guilty of the tort of civil conspiracy. Nonetheless, a
    majority of the Fourth District Appellate Court justices has adopted Rodarmel’s sufficiency-
    of-the-evidence analysis as Fourth District precedent. Thus, under the doctrine of stare
    decisis, I concur in reversing the trial court’s judgment denying defendants’ motions for
    judgment n.o.v.
    ¶ 58       JUSTICE COOK, dissenting.
    ¶ 59       It is surprising that this court would conclude that the suppression of the results of the
    Saranac Laboratory research was no big deal. “Abex’s agreement to conceal information
    about the tumorous mice was not an agreement to perform an unlawful act and hence was
    not a conspiratorial agreement. It cannot be unlawful to suppress information that apparently
    is devoid of any significance.” Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 128, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    .
    Johns-Manville did not do anything wrong? UNARCO did not do anything wrong? That
    approach is inconsistent with previous decisions and with our supreme court’s decision in
    McClure. There was direct evidence that UNARCO and Johns-Manville prevented
    information about the health hazards of asbestos from being published. 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 143
    , 720 N.E.2d at 263. “[T]hese companies required Saranac Laboratory to omit
    references to cancer and tumors from the 1951 article it published concerning the results of
    asbestos research sponsored by Unarco, Johns-Manville, and other asbestos product
    manufacturers.” 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 143
    , 720 N.E.2d at 263. Abex was one of those
    “other asbestos product manufacturers.”
    ¶ 60       The plaintiff in Rodarmel was a wife who contracted mesothelioma from breathing
    asbestos fibers that her husband carried home on his person and clothing. There is a split in
    the appellate court on whether defendants owe a plaintiff a duty in household or “take-home”
    asbestos exposure cases. Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 
    2012 IL 110662
    , ¶ 34 n.3,
    
    965 N.E.2d 1092
    (Freeman, J., dissenting, joined by Burke, J.). Simpkins remanded to give
    plaintiff the opportunity to plead sufficient facts to establish a duty of care. The present case
    is not a household or “take-home” asbestos case. Plaintiff here was employed by UNARCO
    from 1967 to 1969, and later contracted mesothelioma.
    ¶ 61       To state a claim for civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must allege an agreement and a tortious
    act committed in furtherance of that agreement. Parallel conduct, such as failing to warn and
    protect employees and consumers despite knowing that asbestos-containing products could
    cause disease, “may serve as circumstantial evidence of a civil conspiracy among
    -12-
    manufacturers of the same or similar products but is insufficient proof, by itself, of the
    agreement element of this tort.” 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 135
    , 720 N.E.2d at 259. Accidental,
    inadvertent, or negligent participation in a common scheme does not amount to conspiracy.
    Mere knowledge of the fraudulent or illegal actions of another is also not enough to show a
    conspiracy. “However, ‘[a] defendant who understands the general objectives of the
    conspiratorial scheme, accepts them, and agrees, either explicitly or implicitly[,] to do its part
    to further those objectives *** is liable as a conspirator.’ ” 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 134
    , 720
    N.E.2d at 258 (quoting Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd., 
    164 Ill. 2d 54
    , 64, 
    645 N.E.2d 888
    , 894
    (1994)). It is not necessary that defendant admit the conspiracy; evidence of an implicit
    agreement is enough. McClure quoted another case, suggesting what evidence would be
    sufficient: “ ‘The complaint contains no averments of meetings, conferences, telephone calls,
    joint filings, cooperation, consolidation, or joint licensing. The plaintiffs have alleged no
    more than a contemporaneous and negligent failure to act.’ ” 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 138
    , 720
    N.E.2d at 260 (quoting Burnside v. Abbott Laboratories, 
    505 A.2d 973
    , 982 (Pa. Super. Ct.
    1985)).
    ¶ 62        We have meetings, conferences, telephone calls, and cooperation in this case. Abex
    (American Brake Shoe Company) signed the Saranac Agreement. (Owens Corning, the
    defendant in McClure, was not a signatory to the Saranac Agreement.) Abex received a copy
    of the 1948 Saranac report from Vandiver Brown, Johns-Manville’s general counsel. Brown
    requested the nine financing companies meet in the Johns-Manville boardroom November
    11, 1948, “or designate some representative of another company to act for you in connection
    with decisions that will have to be made.” Abex’s medical director, Dr. Lloyd E. Hamlin,
    requested that Brown act for Abex. “I am sure our interest in the matter could be adequately
    protected by Mr. Brown.” After the meeting, Brown asked that Abex return its copy of the
    Saranac report. “Everyone felt it would be most unwise to have any copies of the draft report
    outstanding if the final report is to be different in any substantial respect.” Dr. Hamlin
    wanted to keep the report, promising to keep it confidential, but Brown asked W.T. Kelly,
    Jr., executive vice-president of Abex, to “prevail upon him to return it.” Kelly agreed to do
    so. “There clearly was evidence here, other than evidence of parallel conduct, which was
    sufficient to establish the existence of an agreement between Abex and Johns-Manville to
    suppress or misrepresent information regarding the health hazards of asbestos.” Burgess v.
    Abex Corp., 
    311 Ill. App. 3d 900
    , 903, 
    725 N.E.2d 792
    , 795 (2000). Of course the defendants
    attached excuses to their decisions to suppress, in an attempt to justify those decisions. We
    should not give undue weight to those excuses.
    ¶ 63        Honeywell (Bendix) was not a signatory to the Saranac Laboratory agreement. However,
    from 1930 to 1934, one of its directors, Albert L. Humphrey, was also on the board of Abex.
    From 1959 to 1963, another of its directors, John D. Biggers, was also on the board of Johns-
    Manville. Bendix, Abex, and Johns-Manville were members of the Friction Materials
    Standard Institute, which in 1971 established the Asbestos Information Association to ensure
    “asbestos users [are] current on proposed regulations.” “[M]embership in industrywide trade
    organizations and participation in scientific conferences are common in most industries and
    do not support an inference of agreement.” 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 147
    , 720 N.E.2d at 265
    (citing Payton v. Abbott Labs, 
    512 F. Supp. 1031
    , 1038 (D. Mass. 1981)). The organizations
    -13-
    here were not simply industrywide trade organizations; they were narrowly structured to deal
    with a specific problem. Rodarmel says that sharing a director with an alleged coconspirator
    is no different than membership in an industrywide trade organization. Rodarmel, 2011 IL
    App (4th) 100463, ¶ 117, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . I disagree. A shared director allows continuous,
    one-on-one contact between the two companies, giving them specific advance knowledge of
    concerns and allowing them to participate in decisions. Rodarmel says the record “contain[s]
    no evidence of the extent to which the shared director actually controlled the decision
    making.” Rodarmel, 
    2011 IL App (4th) 100463
    , ¶ 117, 
    957 N.E.2d 107
    . Again, it is not
    necessary that defendant actually admit the conspiracy; implicit evidence is sufficient. There
    were certainly “meetings, conferences, telephone calls *** [and] cooperation” between
    Honeywell, Abex, and Johns-Manville. Their conduct was not simply “contemporaneous.”
    McClure stated that meetings after the Califano announcement did not allow a reasonable
    inference of agreement, but the Califano announcement was in April 1978, and plaintiff’s
    exposure to asbestos here occurred from 1967 to 1969.
    ¶ 64       “ ‘Judgment notwithstanding the verdict should not be entered unless the evidence, when
    viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant
    that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand.’ ” 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 132
    , 720 N.E.2d at 257 (quoting Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 
    176 Ill. 2d 95
    , 109, 
    679 N.E.2d 1202
    , 1208 (1997)). There was persuasive evidence, both explicit and implicit, of an
    agreement here. A circuit court may order a new trial if, after weighing the evidence, the
    court determines that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence–where
    the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the findings of the jury are unreasonable,
    arbitrary, and not based on any of the evidence. 
    McClure, 188 Ill. 2d at 132
    , 720 N.E.2d at
    257. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for a new trial
    in this case.
    -14-