At opening statements Monday in a Middlesex County court for the second suit linking Johnson & Johnson's talc products to mesothelioma, the company offered several alternate theories for the source of the asbestos that caused the plaintiff's illness.

Stephen Lanzo III, 46, said in his suit that he was a lifelong user of Johnson's Baby Powder and was diagnosed with the deadly disease two years ago. His suit said the product is the only possible source of the asbestos that caused his illness. While mesothelioma is often associated with shipyard workers or other industrial jobs, Lanzo is a nonsmoker who never worked in an occupation that could expose him to asbestos.

But counsel for Johnson & Johnson told jurors that the home in Montclair where Lanzo grew up received an abatement in 2002 for basement pipes wrapped in asbestos, and the plaintiff's brother testified that he would swing from those pipes as a youngster, which might have dislodged some of the fibers. What's more, the elementary, middle and high schools Lanzo attended in Montclair all have undergone multiple rounds of asbestos abatement, said Robert Brock of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, who represents Johnson & Johnson. In addition, Lanzo has lived most of his life in northern New Jersey, except for a period where he lived in Northern California, and both those places have a high rate of natural exposure to asbestos, said Brock.

“There are ample opportunities for exposure to occur for Mr. Lanzo or for anyone living in those areas,” Brock said.

The seven women and two men on the jury will be called upon to wade through voluminous  scientific testimony. Johnson & Johnson maintains that the company's talc products have never contained asbestos, while the plaintiff's counsel argues that the talc mine in Vermont that was a longtime source of the company's Johnson's Baby Powder was known to contain asbestos since the early 1970s.

Lanzo's lawyer, Moshe Maimon of Levy Konigsberg in New York, said that when Johnson & Johnson learned its talc contained asbestos, it tried unsuccessfully to remove it from their powder. The company also considered making its baby powder from corn starch, but decided not to, he said. They could have placed a warning label on its products containing asbestos, but failed to do so, he said. Instead, they decided to inform the public that the asbestos in talc was something else, he said.

“The evidence will be that J&J had better choices. They could have informed the public of what they knew and left the choice to individuals,” said Maimon.

J&J's Brock said Lanzo needed to prove that the company's talc contained substantial asbestos, that Lanzo was exposed to that asbestos and that asbestos from the talc caused Lanzo's illness. “The plaintiffs will not meet his proofs on those issues, Brock said.

Maimon appeared to be concerned that the trial venue of New Brunswick is also the headquarters of Johnson & Johnson, which is an important part of the region's economy. He said it was important to acknowledge “what this case is not about. It's not about baby shampoo. It's not about band aids. It's not about Tylenol. It's not about Robert Wood Johnson Hospital. It's not about the many fine people that work at J&J. It's about the actions and decisions of a small group of people at J&J and what they did.”

Brock followed that with a brief history of the company, which was founded in 1886, then added, “It's just beyond believable that the good people at J&J would ever sell a product that contained asbestos,” he said.

Johnson & Johnson already has one victory under its belt in litigation linking the company's talc products to mesothelioma. The first case, brought by plaintiff Tina Herford, ended in a defense verdict in November 2017 in Los Angeles Superior Court. The company has also seen more than 5,000 suits by women who claimed they developed ovarian cancer from using J&J talc products for feminine hygiene.

In 2016, plaintiffs obtained three verdicts against the company—$55 million, $70 million and $72 million—in suits linking talc to ovarian cancer. In 2017, J&J saw one defense verdict in talc litigation, and two verdicts for plaintiffs—$110 million and $417 million. Two of the ovarian cancer verdicts, for $72 million and $417 million, have been reversed.