Jump to content

Mole-Richardson

From WikiMesothelioma — Mesothelioma Knowledge Base
Mole-Richardson Co.
Hollywood Motion Picture & TV Lighting Manufacturer
Founded 1927 — Hollywood, California
Founder Peter Mole (Italian immigrant) with Elmer Richardson
Industry Motion picture, television, and theatrical lighting equipment
Signature Products Fresnel "Solar Spot" tungsten lamps, arc-light spotlights, asbestos-insulated cables, lamp housings, connectors
Academy Awards 4 Technical / Scientific & Engineering Oscars, including 1935 Fresnel Solar Spot
Operating life ~98 years (1927 – December 31, 2025)
Successor entity PK&P Investment Co.
Landmark verdict Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson — $33,384,400 (Feb 27, 2026, LA Superior Court)
Free Case Review →

Executive Summary

Mole-Richardson Co. was the premier American manufacturer of motion picture and television lighting equipment for nearly a century. Founded in 1927 by Italian immigrant Peter Mole and his partner Elmer Richardson, the company supplied the Fresnel "Solar Spot" tungsten lamps, arc-light spotlights, lamp housings, connectors, and high-current electrical cables that defined Hollywood production from the studio era through the digital era.[1][2] The company won four Technical / Scientific & Engineering Academy Awards, including the 1935 Oscar for the Fresnel Solar Spot — the design that became the visual signature of classic Hollywood lighting.[2] Mole-Richardson ceased operations on December 31, 2025 and auctioned its remaining inventory.[2]

On February 27, 2026, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury found Mole-Richardson — operating in its final years as PK&P Investment Co. — 100% liable for the pleural mesothelioma of an 80-year-old retired Hollywood cameraman and U.S. Army veteran, George Stephenson, who had handled the company's asbestos-insulated production cables across decades of studio work. The non-economic damages verdict totaled $33,384,400, and the jury also returned a malice finding under California Civil Code § 3294 — a willful disregard for worker safety — opening the door to punitive damages before the case resolved by settlement.[3][4]

The Stephenson verdict is the largest published asbestos verdict tied specifically to motion-picture lighting equipment in U.S. legal history, and it confirms that Hollywood's "atypical" occupational asbestos sector — cameramen, gaffers, electricians, stagehands, scene-shop carpenters, scenic painters, projectionists — has a clear product-liability pathway to compensation.[5] Compensation is available through product liability lawsuits, asbestos bankruptcy trusts holding approximately $30 billion in remaining assets, and VA disability for service-connected veterans.[6][7]

At-a-Glance

Mole-Richardson at a glance:

  • Founded 1927 in Hollywood by Peter Mole and Elmer Richardson; ~98-year operating life ending December 31, 2025[2]
  • 4 Academy Awards for technical innovation, including the 1935 Oscar for the Fresnel "Solar Spot" tungsten lamp[2]
  • Industry standard for motion picture, television, and theatrical production lighting from the classic Hollywood era forward[1]
  • Asbestos-insulated electrical cables were a core Mole-Richardson product, used to handle the heat of high-wattage incandescent and arc lighting on studio sets[3]
  • Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson — Feb 27, 2026: $33,384,400 non-economic damages verdict in LA County Superior Court, case 25STCV11597, Judge Stephen Czuleger presiding[3][4]
  • 100% liability allocation — the jury allocated zero fault to other defendants or the plaintiff[4]
  • Malice finding under California Civil Code § 3294 — willful and conscious disregard for worker safety, exposing the company to punitive damages[4]
  • 9-day trial, ~2.5-hour deliberation, unanimous verdict — the rapidity of deliberation underscored the strength of plaintiff's evidence[3]
  • Prior litigation: Tytell v. Mole-Richardson (New York) involved a stagehand exposed in 1969 while wrapping asbestos-insulated lighting cables for festival and block-party work; both NY and CA courts denied summary judgment[3]
  • Successor entity: PK&P Investment Co. — the corporate vehicle through which final operations and the Stephenson litigation were conducted[2]

Key Facts

Measure Finding (Source)
Verdict amount $33,384,400 — non-economic damages, Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson, LA County Superior Court, Feb 27, 2026[3][4]
Liability allocation 100% to Mole-Richardson — no fault allocated to plaintiff or other defendants[4]
Malice finding Yes — California Civil Code § 3294 (willful disregard for worker safety)[4]
Case number 25STCV11597 — Los Angeles County Superior Court[4]
Judge Hon. Stephen Czuleger[4]
Trial length / deliberation 9 court days / ~2.5 hours to verdict[3]
Plaintiff profile George Stephenson, 80, U.S. Army veteran and retired Hollywood cameraman with pleural mesothelioma[3]
Founding year / closure 1927 – December 31, 2025 — approximately 98 years of operation[2]
Successor entity PK&P Investment Co. — formerly Mole-Richardson Co., Ltd.[2]
Technical Oscars 4 Academy Awards for technical achievement, including the 1935 Fresnel Solar Spot[2]
California statute of limitations 1 year from disability or knowledge — California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2 (asbestos-specific)[8]

Who founded Mole-Richardson and what did the company make?

Mole-Richardson was founded in 1927 in Hollywood, California by Peter Mole, an Italian immigrant electrical engineer, in partnership with Elmer Richardson.[2] The company's core business was the design and manufacture of high-intensity lighting equipment for the motion picture industry, which was then transitioning from arc-light technology to higher-output tungsten-incandescent systems compatible with sound recording. Mole-Richardson's Fresnel-lens "Solar Spot" tungsten lamp, introduced in the early 1930s, became the industry standard fixture for studio and location lighting and earned the company its first Technical Academy Award in 1935.[2][1]

Over the following decades, Mole-Richardson supplied the bulk of the lighting equipment used in American motion picture and television production. Its product catalog included Fresnel spotlights at every wattage class (from 200-watt "Inkies" through 24,000-watt "Titans"), open-faced floods, follow spots, arc-light units, and the supporting infrastructure of lamp housings, gel frames, scrims, mounting hardware, distribution panels, and the heavy-duty electrical cables that carried current from generators and house power to the fixtures. The company's distinctive maroon-finish housings became visually iconic on Hollywood sets, and many gaffers and electricians used the brand name "Mole" as a generic term for studio lighting fixtures.[2]

The company received a total of four Academy Awards for Technical Achievement / Scientific and Engineering contributions across its operating life, recognizing innovations in lamp design, dimming and control systems, and rigging hardware.[2] Mole-Richardson supplied lighting for thousands of feature films, television series, commercials, music videos, and live broadcasts from the studio era through the 2020s. The company ceased operations on December 31, 2025 and auctioned its remaining factory inventory in early 2026, ending a Hollywood manufacturing run of nearly a century.[2]

Why did Mole-Richardson products contain asbestos?

The same physics that made Mole-Richardson lighting equipment effective also made asbestos useful inside the company's products. Tungsten-incandescent and arc-light fixtures operating at thousands of watts generated extreme heat at the lamp envelope and at the electrical contacts inside the housing. The high-current cables running from generators or house power to the fixtures carried heavy electrical loads that, by the standards of mid-twentieth-century insulation technology, were best handled by asbestos-fiber insulation and jacketing — a material that resisted heat, flame, and electrical breakdown better than the rubber and early plastic alternatives then available.[3][9]

Asbestos appeared in multiple component categories of motion picture lighting equipment manufactured during the asbestos era:

  • High-current electrical cables — the primary exposure source identified in the Stephenson litigation. Cables connecting power sources to lamp housings used asbestos as the primary insulating and jacketing material to withstand the heat the cables themselves generated under sustained high-amperage use.[3]
  • Lamp housings and reflector cavities — asbestos materials were used as gaskets, heat shields, and internal insulation around the lamp envelope to protect surrounding components from radiant heat.[10]
  • Electrical connectors and junctions — asbestos was used as insulation around terminal blocks, distribution panels, and high-current connectors.[9]
  • Gel frames and scrims — some heat-shielding accessories used asbestos cloth or asbestos millboard.[11]

Workers who handled this equipment routinely — cameramen and camera assistants running cable, gaffers and lighting technicians setting and adjusting fixtures, electricians connecting and disconnecting cables, and stagehands and grips moving and storing equipment — were exposed to friable asbestos fibers whenever the cables were flexed, coiled, frayed, cut, or removed from service.[5][11] The hand-wrapping of cables for storage between productions, documented in the New York Tytell case as a routine duty in 1969, was a particularly high-exposure activity because it disturbed worn jacketing and released fibers into the breathing zone.[3]

The company's product-liability exposure rests on the principle, well established in U.S. asbestos litigation, that manufacturers of asbestos-containing products bear the duty to warn end-users of the disease risk regardless of whether the products themselves were the immediate source of profit. Mole-Richardson did not mine asbestos. It purchased asbestos-containing cables, gaskets, and millboard from suppliers and incorporated them into finished lighting equipment marketed to studios, networks, theaters, and rental houses. That incorporation is what carries liability — and the Stephenson verdict's malice finding indicates a California jury concluded the company knew the risk and proceeded anyway.[4][12]

What happened in Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson?

George Stephenson is an 80-year-old retired Hollywood cameraman and U.S. Army veteran. Over a multi-decade career in motion picture production, he handled Mole-Richardson lighting equipment daily — running cables to and from fixtures, coiling cables between setups, storing cables between productions, and working in physical proximity to lamp housings and connectors that contained additional asbestos materials. He was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma — the asbestos-caused cancer of the lining of the chest cavity — and filed suit against Mole-Richardson and its successor entity, PK&P Investment Co.[3]

The case, Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson Co., case number 25STCV11597, was tried before Judge Stephen Czuleger in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The trial proceeded under California's preferential trial setting under CCP § 36(a), which fast-tracks asbestos cases for plaintiffs over age 70 with serious health conditions onto a 120-day track.[13] Trial took nine court days. The jury deliberated for approximately two and a half hours before returning its verdict on February 27, 2026.[3]

The jury awarded $33,384,400 in non-economic damages — pain, suffering, and loss of life's enjoyment — and allocated 100 percent of fault to Mole-Richardson, with no allocation to other defendants or to the plaintiff. Stephenson had waived economic damages (medical expenses and lost income) at trial to focus the jury entirely on the non-economic harms.[3][4]

The jury also returned a finding of malice under California Civil Code § 3294, the threshold for punitive damages. A malice finding in California requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. The Stephenson jury determined that Mole-Richardson had met that standard — the company knew of the asbestos hazard in its products and continued to manufacture and sell them without adequate warning. With malice established, the trial was set to move into a punitive damages phase. The parties reached a confidential post-verdict settlement before the punitive phase concluded.[4][12]

Litigation history: Tytell v. Mole-Richardson and prior cases

Stephenson was not the first asbestos claim against Mole-Richardson. The most extensively documented prior matter is Tytell v. Mole-Richardson, a New York state case in which the plaintiff alleged exposure to Mole-Richardson asbestos-insulated lighting cables in 1969 while working as a stagehand wrapping cables for festival and block-party lighting installations.[3] Tytell's case survived summary judgment in New York, establishing that the product-identification evidence connecting the company to a specific worker's exposure could meet New York's demanding causation standard.

The Stephenson case in California similarly survived summary judgment before proceeding to the 2026 verdict. The cross-jurisdictional pattern — New York and California courts both denying summary judgment to Mole-Richardson — established that the company's asbestos product line creates jury-triable exposure questions across multiple states and across multiple categories of entertainment workers (stagehands in Tytell, cameramen in Stephenson).[3][4]

Other workers exposed to Mole-Richardson equipment have begun to come forward in the wake of the Stephenson verdict's publication. The pool of potential claimants includes any cameraman, gaffer, best boy, electrician, key grip, stagehand, dimmer-board operator, or rental-house worker who handled Mole-Richardson cables or fixtures between roughly the 1940s and the early 1980s — when asbestos-containing products were standard in the lighting industry. Many of those workers are now in the 60–60+ year latency window typical of mesothelioma after first asbestos exposure.[5][14]

The Stephenson verdict carries three distinct legal consequences for entertainment industry asbestos litigation:

1. Successor liability against PK&P Investment Co. Mole-Richardson operated in its final years under the corporate name PK&P Investment Co. The Stephenson plaintiff successfully named both the historical Mole-Richardson entity and the PK&P successor, and the jury allocated 100% of fault to the company in both its identities. This forecloses any defense based on dissolution or name change. With Mole-Richardson ceasing operations on December 31, 2025, successor liability through PK&P remains the litigation vehicle for any post-closure claims.[4][2]

2. Malice finding under California Civil Code § 3294. The jury's malice finding under California's punitive damages statute is a significant evidentiary precedent. It signals to future juries that the documentary record on Mole-Richardson's knowledge of the asbestos hazard in its products met the clear-and-convincing standard for willful and conscious disregard. Future plaintiffs against the company — or against its successor — start with the benefit of that precedent in their evidentiary case.[4]

3. CCP § 36 preferential trial setting. The Stephenson case proceeded under California's accelerated trial calendar for plaintiffs over 70 with serious health conditions. The 120-day track from preferential setting motion to trial is one of the fastest civil trial timelines in U.S. asbestos litigation, and it allows mesothelioma plaintiffs to reach verdict during their lifetime — a critical practical advantage given the disease's typical median survival of 12 to 21 months.[13][12]

Is there a Mole-Richardson asbestos trust fund?

As of the publication of this entry, Mole-Richardson has not filed for Section 524(g) bankruptcy reorganization and has not established an asbestos personal injury trust. The company ceased operations on December 31, 2025 through corporate dissolution rather than bankruptcy. Claims against Mole-Richardson and its successor entity PK&P Investment Co. proceed through traditional civil litigation in state court rather than through a trust-fund claims process.[2][6]

Plaintiffs with Mole-Richardson exposure who also have additional product-identification evidence — for example, exposure to asbestos-containing pipe insulation manufactured by Johns-Manville, Owens-Corning Fiberglas, or other bankrupt manufacturers — can pursue parallel trust fund claims against those bankrupt entities while also litigating the Mole-Richardson lawsuit. Trust filings are independent of civil litigation and do not offset civil recoveries. Asbestos bankruptcy trusts collectively hold approximately $30 billion in remaining assets and continue to pay claims through scheduled processes.[6][15]

Frequently Asked Questions

Who can sue Mole-Richardson for asbestos exposure? Any worker who handled Mole-Richardson lighting equipment — cameramen, gaffers, electricians, stagehands, grips, rental-house workers — and who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease may have a product-liability claim. The Tytell and Stephenson verdicts establish that the company's asbestos cable products create jury-triable exposure questions in both California and New York. Family members exposed through take-home asbestos contamination (fibers carried home on the worker's clothing) may also have claims.[3][12]

What was the $33.4 million verdict for, exactly? The verdict was for non-economic damages only — pain, suffering, and loss of life's enjoyment caused by the plaintiff's pleural mesothelioma. Stephenson waived economic damages (medical expenses and lost income) at trial. The jury also found malice under CCP § 3294, which would have supported punitive damages in a second phase of trial; the parties settled before that phase concluded.[3][4]

Does Mole-Richardson's closure on December 31, 2025 affect new claims? No. The company's successor entity, PK&P Investment Co., remains the proper defendant for post-closure claims. The Stephenson jury allocated 100% of fault to the company under both its historical and successor identities. Claims can be filed against PK&P at any time, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.[2][4]

What is the statute of limitations for a Mole-Richardson asbestos claim? In California, California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2 requires asbestos personal injury claims to be filed within one year of the date of disability or the date the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known the illness was caused by asbestos exposure. The clock generally runs from diagnosis or from the point at which the disease prevents normal occupational or daily functioning. Other states have different deadlines, typically two to four years.[8]

Are veterans who worked in Hollywood eligible for both VA benefits and a Mole-Richardson lawsuit? Yes. Many cameramen, electricians, and other production workers — including the Stephenson plaintiff — are veterans whose first asbestos exposure occurred during military service. The VA recognizes asbestos as a service-connected hazardous material, and mesothelioma is rated at 100% disability. VA benefits do not offset civil lawsuit recoveries. The dual-path approach is standard for service-connected veterans with mixed military and civilian exposure histories.[7]

How long does a Mole-Richardson lawsuit take to resolve? Under California's CCP § 36(a) preferential trial setting, plaintiffs over age 70 with serious health conditions are entitled to trial within 120 days of the granted preference motion. The Stephenson trial reached verdict approximately nine court days after opening statements, with deliberations of about two and a half hours. Cases typically resolve more quickly than ordinary civil litigation because of the preferential calendar and because of the established product-identification record.[13][3]

Can the families of deceased Hollywood workers file claims? Yes. California wrongful death claims are available to surviving family members of workers who died from asbestos-related disease. The statute of limitations for wrongful death runs from the date of death rather than from the date of original exposure or original diagnosis. Surviving spouses of service-connected veterans may also qualify for VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC).[12][7]

Quick Statistics

  • $33,384,400 — non-economic damages awarded in Stephenson v. Mole-Richardson, Feb 27, 2026[3]
  • 100% — fault allocation to Mole-Richardson in the Stephenson verdict[4]
  • ~2.5 hours — jury deliberation time before unanimous verdict[3]
  • 4 Oscars — Technical / Scientific & Engineering Academy Awards won by Mole-Richardson over its operating life[2]
  • ~98 years — Mole-Richardson's operating life, 1927 through December 31, 2025[2]
  • 20–60 years — typical mesothelioma latency window from first asbestos exposure to diagnosis[5]
  • 120 days — California's preferential trial track for asbestos plaintiffs over 70 under CCP § 36(a)[13]
  • $30 billion+ — remaining assets in asbestos bankruptcy trust funds (separate from civil claims against Mole-Richardson)[6]
  • 1 year — California statute of limitations for asbestos personal injury claims under CCP § 340.2[8]

Get Help

If you or a family member worked in motion picture, television, or theatrical production and has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, Danziger & De Llano can evaluate whether a claim against Mole-Richardson, PK&P Investment Co., or other asbestos defendants is appropriate. The Stephenson verdict establishes a clear product-liability pathway for cameramen, gaffers, electricians, stagehands, and other entertainment industry workers exposed to asbestos-insulated studio lighting equipment.

Free case review: dandell.com/contact-us — Call (855) 699-5441. No fee unless we recover compensation. California statutes of limitations are short; prompt consultation preserves every option.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 About Us — Mole Richardson Co., Mole-Richardson Co.
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 PK&P Investment Co. (formerly Mole-Richardson) — case docket and operating history, Goldberg Segalla Asbestos Case Tracker (covering company founding year, technical Academy Awards heritage, December 31, 2025 cessation of operations, and successor entity PK&P Investment Co.)
  3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 Jury Awards $33.4 Million to Mesothelioma Victim Sickened by Lighting Equipment, Mesothelioma.net (2026)
  4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 California Jury Awards Over $33 Million to Mesothelioma Claimant Against Hollywood Lighting Equipment Manufacturer, Goldberg Segalla Asbestos Case Tracker (2026)
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Asbestos-related diseases in entertainment workers, Mensi C et al., La Medicina del Lavoro 2010;101(6):416-8 (PMID 21141346)
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Mesothelioma Asbestos Trust Fund Payouts, Danziger & De Llano
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Veterans Mesothelioma Benefits, Danziger & De Llano
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.2, California Legislative Information
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Asbestos — Safety and Health Topics, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
  10. ↑ Asbestos Exposure, MesotheliomaAttorney.com
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Insulation Workers and Asbestos Exposure, Mesothelioma Lawyer Center
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Asbestos Exposure Lawyers, Danziger & De Llano
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 36 (Preferential Trial Setting), California Legislative Information
  14. ↑ Mesothelioma Diagnosis Guide, Danziger & De Llano
  15. ↑ Asbestos Trust Funds, Mesothelioma Lawyer Center
Retrieved from "https://wikimesothelioma.com/w/index.php?title=Mole-Richardson&oldid=2844"