You are here: / Toxic Torts
, , , , ,

UNDER THE JONES ACT OHIO HAD JURISDICTION TO APPOINT ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT WHO ALLEGEDLY DIED OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS ON MERCHANT MARINE SHIPS; THE NEW YORK EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE WAS TIMELY AND PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OHIO ADMINISTRATORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, in a complex decision which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined: (1) under the Jones Act Ohio had jurisdiction to appoint administrators for decedent who allegedly died from asbestos exposure on merchant marine ships where he was employed; and (2) substitution of a New York personal representative, executor of the estate, was proper and timely:

… [T]he Jones Act provides that when a seaman dies from an employment injury “the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer” (46 USC § 30104).

The Jones Act grants a right of action to the personal representative “without other description” … . The Act does not require that the personal representative be either “a domiciliary or ancillary administrator” … . A domiciliary administrator has standing to file a Jones Act or FELA [Federal Employers’ Liability Act] lawsuit in another state … . However, nothing “explicitly clothes a domiciliary administrator with the exclusive right to maintain such an action” because such a requirement is inconsistent with “the remedial nature” of FELA and the “representative character” of such a suit … .

Notably, the personal representative’s authority under the Jones Act derives from “a federal statutory right and power given to carry out the policy of the federal statutes” and “is not limited to the confines of the State where he was appointed but is co-extensive with general federal jurisdiction” … . Bartel v Maersk Line, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02058, First Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: Under the Jones Act, the estate of a merchant-marine employee who died from exposure to asbestos on the employer’s ships may sue the employer. Here the suit was deemed properly started by administrators appointed by an Ohio court and the New York executor was properly and timely substituted for the Ohio administrators.

See also the companion decision: Bartel v Farrell Lines, 2023 NY Slip Op 02057, First Dept 4-20-23

 

,

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURED VALVES CONTAINING ASBESTOS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD A SMALL OFFICE IN NYC THE VALVES WERE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, WHERE PLAINTIFF LIVED AND WORKED; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR NEW YORK JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s asbestos exposure action. Although the defendant manufacturer of valves containing asbestos had a small office in New York, defendant demonstrated that all the activity which related to the manufacture, sale and use of the valves took place in Connecticut. Plaintiff lived and worked exclusively in Connecticut as well:

… [T]here was no record evidence suggesting that defendant’s minimal activity in New York had an articulable nexus to plaintiff’s injury. … … [In addition] plaintiff did not offer a sufficient basis to justify jurisdictional discovery … . To the extent that defendant operated an executive and sales office out of the 100 Park Avenue office, this limited activity was not substantially related to plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos while working with and around defendant’s valves in Connecticut and plaintiff does not identify any other activity by defendant in New York that could provide a sufficient nexus to his injury. Instead, all conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in Connecticut, as he was not a New York resident, did not purchase or work with defendant’s valves in New York, and does not claim to have suffered harm in this State … . Without an adequate relationship between New York and plaintiff’s claims, “specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State” … . Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 2023 NY Slip Op 00402, First Dept 1-31-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos in valves made by defendant caused his cancer. The valves were manufactured and sold in Connecticut where plaintiff lived and worked. Defendant’s small office in New York was not sufficiently connected with plaintiff’s claims to support New York jurisdiction.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHEN MAINTAINING DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PLAINTIFF’S ASBESTOS-INJURIES; AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR DEFENDANT TO ARGUE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE CAUSATION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether plaintiff (Howard) was exposed to asbestos in his maintenance of defendant’s pumps on Navy submarines: Defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that its products did not contribute to plaintiff’s asbestos-injuries:

“In order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant[] bore the initial burden of demonstrating that [its] respective products ‘could not have contributed to the causation’ of [Howard]’s asbestos-related injuries” … . Defendant could not prevail on its motion for summary judgment by “merely pointing to gaps in . . . plaintiff[s’] proof” … . In other words, “[defendant] could not simply argue that plaintiff[s] could not affirmatively prove causation, but rather it had to affirmatively prove, as a matter of law, that there was no causation” … .

… According to Howard [plaintiff], his duties aboard these various vessels required, among other things, that he directly supervise maintenance on defendant’s pumps, which included asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation. Howard stated that he would work in the immediate vicinity of the pumps when the gaskets were removed and scraped from the pumps, and when packing and insulation on the pumps was removed and replaced. Howard v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 2023 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: In a toxic tort case, in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, defendant must demonstrate as a matter of law that defendant’s products did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant will not win a summary judgment motion in this context by arguing plaintiff could not prove causation.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF ASBESTOS TO HAVE CAUSED HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this asbestos-exposure case did not raise a question of fact about whether his exposure to asbestos was sufficient to have caused his cancer. Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos when he installed defendant ABI’s vinyl floor tiles. Defendant presented evidence from simulation studies and plaintiff offered no expert evidence in opposition:

In Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am. (___ NY3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 02769 [2022]), the Court of Appeals, while recognizing its conclusion in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 NY3d 434 [2006]) that precise qualification of exposure to a toxin is not always required, stated that causation nonetheless requires plaintiff to provide proof of “sufficient exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health effect” … . …

Plaintiff challenges the opinion proffered by ABI’s expert, who relied upon calculations arising from experiments funded by defendants, in determining that decedent was exposed, if at all, to asbestos in amounts similar to those in ambient air, an exposure insufficient to cause cancer. While the reliability of those calculations could pose an issue of credibility, the fact that they were performed by a paid expert does not automatically invalidate their conclusions. Plaintiff offered no expert to counter ABI’s calculation of decedent’s cumulative lifetime exposure, and thus no question of fact was raised as to its validity … . Killian v A.C. & S., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04610, First Dept 7-19-22

Practice Point: Here defendant presented evidence of simulation studies to show that plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos was not sufficient to have caused his cancer and plaintiff presented no expert evidence in opposition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

, , ,

THE PROOF AT TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF INHALED SUFFICIENT LEVELS OF ASBESTOS WHEN USING DEFENDANT’S TALCUM POWDER TO HAVE CAUSED HER MESOTHELIOMA; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant J & J’s motion to set aside the verdict in the asbestos-exposure trial should have been granted. Plaintiffs, as a matter of law, did not demonstrate the exposure to asbestos in defendant’s talcum powder caused plaintiff’s mesothelioma:

At trial, plaintiffs failed, as a matter of law, to carry their burden “to establish sufficient exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health effect” … . To make such a showing, a plaintiff must present expert testimony providing a “scientific expression of the level of exposure to toxins in defendant’s products that was sufficient to have caused the disease” … . Even if it is assumed that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support their mineral expert’s estimate of the amount of asbestos to which plaintiff Donna Olson was exposed each time she used J&J’s talcum powder products, plaintiffs’ medical expert never set forth a scientific expression of the minimum lifetime exposure to asbestos that would have been sufficient to cause mesothelioma, the disease in question … . Thus, the medical expert’s testimony that mesothelioma could have resulted from “a significant exposure above normal background levels” was insufficient. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2022 NY Slip Op 04611, First Dept 7-19-22

Practice Point: This is another decision in a group of four decisions released on the same day by the First Department finding plaintiff’s expert evidence failed, as a matter of law, to demonstrate plaintiff had inhaled enough asbestos to have caused lung disease.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF INHALED ENOUGHT ASBESTOS FIBERS TO CAUSE HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not present sufficient expert evidence that his exposure to asbestos from defendant ABI’s vinyl floor tiles and sheet flooring caused his cancer. Plaintiff was an electrician and he alleged he worked in close proximity to workers installing ABI’s flooring:

[I]n asbestos exposure and other toxic tort cases, “an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)” …  As to specific causation, “there must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of th[e] agent that are known to cause the [relevant] harm” … .

… “[B]ecause there are times that ‘a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin will be difficult or impossible to quantify by pinpointing an exact numerical value,’ ‘it is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely or use the dose-response relationship, provided that whatever methods an expert uses to establish causation are generally accepted in the scientific community'” … . …

Plaintiff’s opposition failed to raise any issue of fact as to specific causation. A showing that the decedent “work[ed] in dust laden with asbestos generated from products containing asbestos” accompanied by “expert testimony that dust raised from manipulating asbestos products ‘necessarily’ contains enough asbestos to cause mesothelioma” is not enough … . Plaintiff’s medical expert did point to simulation studies measuring an average level of airborne asbestos as high as 0.27 f/cc during the cutting, sanding, and snapping of asbestos-containing floor tile. He did not, however, provide any correlation between the asbestos fiber levels to which plaintiff may have been exposed and the amount of inhaled asbestos that would have caused decedent’s lung cancer … .Pomponi v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 04612, First Dept 7-19-22

Practice Point: The general evidentiary requirements for a plaintiff’s prima facie case in an asbestos-exposure care are clearly explained. Plaintiff’s expert evidence was not sufficient to raise a question of fact about whether the exposure caused his cancer.

 

, , ,

WHETHER PLAINTIFF INHALED ENOUGH ASBESTOS TO CAUSE HIS CANCER WAS THE SUBJECT OF COMPETING SIMULATION STUDIES; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant ABI’s motion for summary judgment in this asbestos-exposure case should have been granted. Plaintiff sold vinyl floor tiles made by ABI. Plaintiff alleged when he cut, manipulated and broke the tiles in demonstrations for customers, he inhaled asbestos fibers which were embedded in the vinyl tiles. The Fist Department found the expert evidence did not demonstrate plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of asbestos to cause lung cancer:

ABI had the burden to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact as to causation … . Once this burden was met, it would fall to plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof, in admissible form, establishing that there were disputed material issues of fact … . * * *

The dispute based upon the competing simulation studies about whether the decedent was exposed to asbestos in an amount that exceeded ambient levels typically found in non-occupational settings is not enough to avoid summary judgment. … [S]imply showing that exposures to a toxin were “‘excessive'” or “‘far more'” a certain threshold (ambient) is not enough … . … [P]laintiff had the “‘difficult, if not impossible,'” task of establishing that his decedent had a sufficient exposure to asbestos to have caused his lung cancer … . [Plaintiff’s expert] does not provide any reliable correlation between the presence of asbestos fiber concentrations found in the studies and how much in haled asbestos would have caused lung cancer generally and the decedent’s lung cancer in particular. Dyer v Amchem Prods. Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04609, First Dept 7-19-22

Practice Point: This decision includes a useful discussion of the proof requirements in an asbestos-exposure case. The decision characterized the plaintiff’s task of demonstrating sufficient exposure to cause cancer as “difficult, if not impossible.”

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF, A TEXAS RESIDENT WHO WAS A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 30 YEARS WITH MONTHLY STAY-OVERS IN NEW YORK, DEMONSTRATED NEW YORK HAD LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED TALCUM POWDER PLAINTIFF USED; THE TALCUM POWDER ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S MESOTHELIOMA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined New York had specific long-arm jurisdiction of defendant Shulton, the manufacturer and distributor of talcum powder alleged to have cause plaintiff’s peritoneal mesothelioma. Plaintiff (English) was a flight attendant for 30 years who used the talcum powder when she stayed in New York. Shulton has its principal place of business in New Jersey but has an office in New York and markets the product in New York:

English, a Texas resident, was employed as a flight attendant for 33 years, from 1966 to 1999. During a substantial part of that time, she used Desert Flower on a daily basis after showering. From 1966 to 1984, English was regularly assigned to flights into New York and flew into this state two to four times a month. She usually remained in New York on two- or three-day layovers. When English travelled, she packed Desert Flower in her luggage, so she would have it available for use when she showered. There is no claim that the Desert Flower English used in New York was purchased in New York.

Shulton is incorporated in New Jersey, where it had its principal place of business during the time that English claims to have used Desert Flower. Shulton never manufactured Desert Flower in New York, and in the mid-1970s the manufacture of its talc products shifted from Tennessee to New Jersey. Desert Flower was marketed nationally, including in New York. During the relevant period of time, Shulton maintained a New York office from which it conducted its marketing activities for its Cosmetics and Toiletries Division. The New York office was also headquarters for its International Division. * * * Shulton’s maintenance of its own New York office satisfies the first prong under CPLR 302(a)(1). * * * Desert Flower was marketed and sold nationally, and English used Desert Flower when she travelled to and while she stayed in New York. Shulton’s activities and contacts with New York and the allegedly hazardous talcum powder used by English are sufficient to support an assertion of specific jurisdiction over Shulton…. . English v Avon Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03571, First Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Even though plaintiff was a Texas resident and the company she was suing was based in New Jersey, she was able to sue using New York courts. Plaintiff was a flight attendant for 30 years with monthly stay-overs in New York. Defendant had an office in New York and marketed the talcum powder which allegedly cause plaintiff’s mesothelioma nationwide.

 

,

THE OVER $3,000,000 VERDICT IN THIS TOXIC TORT CASE REVERSED; THE PROOF THAT DEFENDANT’S TALCUM POWDER, WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTAINED ASBESTOS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S LUNG CANCER WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT; THE STANDARD FOR PROOF OF CAUSATION IN TOXIC TORT CASES DISCUSSED IN DEPTH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the proof of plaintiff’s decedent’s exposure to asbestos in defendant’s talcum powder was not sufficient to demonstrate the powder caused decedent’s mesothelioma (lung cancer). The opinion reviews the toxic-tort caselaw with respect to the sufficiency of proof of causation. That discussion is too comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

Although we have recognized that in any given case it may be “difficult, if not impossible, to quantify a plaintiff’s past exposure” to a toxin … , our standard itself is not “impossible” for plaintiffs to meet … . We must, as always, strike a balance between the need to exclude “unreliable or speculative information” as to causation with our obligation to ensure that we have not set “an insurmountable standard that would effectively deprive toxic tort plaintiffs of their day in court” … . The requirement that plaintiff establish, using expert testimony based on generally accepted methodologies, sufficient exposure to a toxin to cause the claimed illness strikes the appropriate balance … . The fault here is not in our standard, but in plaintiff’s proof. Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am.. 2022 NY Slip Op 02769, CtApp 4-26, 2022

Practice Point: This Court of Appeals opinion reviews and analyzes the causation proof-requirements for toxic tort cases. Here the proof that asbestos in talcum powder caused plaintiff’s decedent’s lung cancer was deemed insufficient.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING EXPOSURE TO TOXIC FUMES ARE TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO CPLR 214-C (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action alleging exposure to toxic fumes and hazardous substances were time-barred:

… [T]he … causes of action [alleging] the purported exposure to toxic fumes and hazardous substances (exposure claims) because they are untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-c [2]). … [T]hat statute of limitations began to run from the date of discovery of plaintiff’s injury. Discovery occurs “when the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based” and not “when the connection between . . . symptoms and the injured’s exposure to a toxic substance is recognized” … . By submitting, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony and a workers’ compensation claim filed by him in 2011, defendants established that the exposure claims accrued in 2003 when he “made repeated visits to [his] treating providers for symptoms described in [his] bill of particulars as caused by the [chemical] exposure” … , and well over three years prior to the commencement of this action in 2014. To the extent that plaintiff relies on the one-year statute of limitations provided by CPLR 214-c (4), plaintiff cannot avail himself of that limitations period because, inter alia, plaintiff explicitly linked his exposure-related symptoms to exposure at Niagara Lubricant in his workers’ compensation claim, i.e., over one year prior to the commencement of this action … . Cotter v Lasco, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04293, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy