CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04437 [186 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

This case, part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation, involved claims from William E. Robaey and Marlena Robaey against Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, among others, for peritoneal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure from gaskets. A jury awarded significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. On appeal, Federal-Mogul challenged the sufficiency of evidence for specific causation and the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the finding of specific causation, distinguishing the facts from prior rulings, particularly Juni. However, the court found the damages for past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated reduction.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaToxic TortSpecific CausationExpert TestimonyDamages RemittiturPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Case No. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06557 [143 AD3d 483]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation

This case, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, involves an appeal by Crane Co. against a jury verdict awarding damages to Laraine Sweberg, as executrix of Ivan Sweberg, for mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's finding that Crane Co. was liable for failing to warn about asbestos hazards, as it promoted asbestos-containing materials alongside its products despite knowing the dangers since the 1930s. The court found sufficient evidence to support proximate causation and the submission of recklessness to the jury. However, the court modified the judgment regarding the award for future pain and suffering, conditionally vacating it and ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced award of $4.5 million.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaFailure to WarnProximate CauseJury VerdictDamages RemittiturFuture Pain and SufferingAppellate ReviewProduct LiabilityAsbestos Exposure
References
6
Case No. 87 Civ. 8085, 88 Civ. 4214, 90 Civ. 3473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

In re Asbestos Litigation

Plaintiffs in five separate asbestos tort actions moved to consolidate their claims for trial, citing common questions of law and fact under Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The cases involve deceased individuals who allegedly contracted mesothelioma and/or lung cancer from asbestos exposure. District Judge Sweet considered the established eight-factor test, including common worksites, similar occupations, overlapping exposure periods (1940-1986), the nature of the diseases, and common counsel. The court found substantial similarities among the cases, concluding that consolidation would achieve significant economy by eliminating repetitive testimony and facilitating a fairer comparison of worksites. Consequently, the motion to consolidate the five actions was granted.

Asbestos LitigationMass Toxic TortsConsolidation of ActionsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)MesotheliomaLung CancerCommon WorksiteSimilar OccupationTime of ExposureDeceased Plaintiffs
References
10
Case No. 5 N.Y.3d 486
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2005

Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig

Elizabeth Holdampf, wife of Port Authority employee John Holdampf, alleged she contracted mesothelioma from asbestos dust brought home on her husband's work clothes, which she laundered. The New York Court of Appeals considered whether the Port Authority, as an employer and landowner, owed a duty of care to a non-employee spouse for secondhand asbestos exposure. Reversing the Appellate Division, the Court concluded that no such duty of care exists, emphasizing the reluctance to extend liability to an indeterminate class of persons and the absence of a direct relationship between the Port Authority and Elizabeth Holdampf.

Asbestos ExposureDuty of CareEmployer LiabilityLandowner DutyThird-Party InjuryMesotheliomaNegligenceWorkplace ToxinsHousehold ExposureAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02624 [227 AD3d 1516]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2024

Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal by Hedman Resources Limited against a judgment awarding damages to Terri Viglietta for injuries sustained by Benedict Viglietta due to asbestos exposure. The appeal contested the Supreme Court's decision to quash a subpoena served on Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), the decedent's employer's predecessor-in-interest. Hedman sought OCC's testimony regarding asbestos exposure but the subpoena was quashed as OCC was a non-party and Hedman could not apportion liability to it. Additionally, Hedman challenged the denial of a jury instruction that OCC's failure to warn employees could be an intervening cause. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that quashing the subpoena was a proper exercise of discretion and that the employer's alleged failure to warn did not constitute an intervening cause to relieve Hedman of negligence.

Asbestos ExposureSubpoenaQuash SubpoenaNonparty WitnessIntervening CauseNegligenceJury InstructionAppellate ReviewDamages AwardDiscovery Matters
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. No. 8
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. Chevron Corporation

Mason South, a merchant marine, sued Chevron Corporation (successor by merger to Texaco, Inc.) and other defendants in 2015, alleging his mesothelioma resulted from asbestos exposure during his career from 1945-1982. This current lawsuit followed a 1997 settlement between Mr. South and Texaco, Inc., where he signed a release for $1,750 concerning previous asbestos exposure claims. Chevron moved for summary judgment in the 2015 case, arguing the 1997 release barred the claims. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division denied summary judgment, noting the record's insufficiency to demonstrate the release's validity under the heightened burden of federal admiralty law and FELA for seamen. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Chevron had not met its burden to prove the release was executed with full understanding of rights, citing the ambiguity of the release regarding future diseases like mesothelioma and the circumstances surrounding the 1997 settlement.

AsbestosMesotheliomaSeaman's ReleaseJones ActFELAAdmiralty LawSummary JudgmentContract ValidityBurden of ProofNew York Courts
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 699 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational