In a recent development in the asbestos litigation movement, a New York appeals court denied the motion of dozens of companies trying to dismiss asbestos injury claims. The companies had tried to file for dismissal to a lower court previously, but were also denied, spurring the companies to submit their motion to the appeals court, only to be denied once again.

The four-judge panel rendered the decision in the New York Supreme Court, where Judge Sherry Klein Heitler was authorized to issue her 2014 ruling, further modifying the litigation order of asbestos claims.

In April 2014, Judge Heitler allowed a group of asbestos plaintiffs to seek punitive damages against Crane Co. and other manufacturing companies. The judge explained that preventing plaintiffs from pursuing these punitive damages would suggest a potential concern for lack of “constitutional equal protection concerns”.

This new ruling now allows asbestos plaintiffs who allegedly suffered from disease or injury as a result of asbestos exposure to sue for punitive damages. However, the ruling only permits presentation of these punitive claims at the end of the discovery phase.

Overview of Asbestos Litigation Movement

A case management order was established in the late 1980s, in order to help streamline the severe number of asbestos lawsuits filed in the New York Supreme Court, similarly alleging asbestos lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other asbestos exposure related complications.

This case management order did not address the punitive damages until Judge Helen Freedman made the first revision in 1996; the punitive damage claims received a nod, and were deferred for later action. The logic in this decision was to allow asbestos exposure victims to seek punitive damage in all New York state courts except hers. Essentially, the revision to the case order was made when Judge Heitler could not justify why a plaintiff could not seek punitive damages if they were in her district.

After Judge Heitler delivered her verdict to the manufacturing companies trying to dismiss the punitive claims, the appeals court agreed with her decision and allowed the punitive damage claims to proceed. However, the appeals court stated that she overstepped her authority when she told plaintiff to file their punitive claims after the discovery phase had ended.

By doing this, the defendants would be deprived of their right to due process by “leaving them guessing until the close of the evidence trial” of whether or not punitive damages could be pursued. The appeals court ultimately ordered the revision of the case order management, ordering plaintiffs with punitive damage claims to present them at the end of the discovery process.

The appeals court stated that this ruling will give equal opportunity to the plaintiffs and defendants in the ongoing asbestos litigation.

Asbestos Litigation

Asbestos litigation involves plaintiffs who suffered from asbestos exposure and were later diagnosed with conditions like asbestos lung cancer, mesothelioma, or asbestosis. It is important to note that these asbestos-related diseases are often diagnosed at a latent stage of cancer.

A majority of injuries related to asbestos exposure is due to the victims inadvertently inhaling or swallowing asbestos fibers, which later embed themselves in the stomach or lungs. There are often little treatment options available, with limited survival expectancy. Due to the long dormant period, the asbestos litigation movement has become the longest-running mass tort in the United States, with over 600,000 plaintiffs and over 6,000 defendants.

The Asbestos Lung Cancer Lawsuit is In re: New York City Asbestos Litigation, Case No. 40000/88, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.