Ny Asbestos Litigation: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms may develop for years before they manifest.
Judges who manage the cases of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further erode the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is much different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies which are being accused of being sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. In addition there are often specific workplaces which are the subject of these cases because asbestos was used in a variety of products and many workers were exposed to it while working. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets in the country. It is administered by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases that have many defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the largest plaintiff verdicts in recent times.
New York Court of Appeals has made major changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to the core when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Mobile asbestos lawyers had been accused of killing every reasonably designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than 20 years, while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014, citing reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented several changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present evidence that their products aren't accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. Additionally, he introduced a new practice in which he did not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new rule will greatly alter the speed of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket and could result in better outcomes for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge from the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to another district. This will hopefully result in more efficient and uniform handling of these cases, as the MDL currently MDL has earned reputation for a history of abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanctions and low evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement, the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties with asbestos lawyers have finally drawn attention to New York City's rigged asbestos court. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now in charge of NYCAL, has already held a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.
Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also includes similar workplaces where workers were exposed to asbestos, which led to mesothelioma or lung cancer. These cases can result in huge verdicts that could clog court dockets.
To address this issue A number of states have passed laws to limit the type of claims that can be made. These laws usually address medical requirements two disease rules expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws states continue to experience high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of cases filed and speed up the resolution process, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example demands that claimants meet certain medical requirements and also has a rule of two diseases and uses an accelerated trial schedule.
Certain states have also passed laws to limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to stop bad conduct and allow more compensation to the victims. No matter if your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with an New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your specific situation.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation as well as commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, Lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He has also defended claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents, vibration, noise, mold, and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against manufacturers of asbestos-containing products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that succeed make asbestos companies liable for their rash decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds against the largest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies could result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to be the subject of headlines. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction where you can file mesothelioma claims, after California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state has been shook by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges that were linked to millions of dollars in referral fees he earned for the politically-powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was appointed NYCAL's manager following the revelations of the scandal. She was in charge of NYCAL since 2008.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has made it clear that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment unless they have an "scientifically sound credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" that shows the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants can obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove injury to their health due to asbestos exposure to be able for the court to award compensatory damage. This decision, coupled with a decision from early 2016 that held that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.
In the most recent case, which Judge Toal presided over, a mesothelioma suit filed against DOVER Green, the company is accused of violating asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to conduct an inspection of the Campus; inform EPA before starting renovation activities and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative on site during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one time asbestos personal injury/death lawsuits filled state and federal court dockets and depleted judges' resources for judicial work, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other crucial civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely settlement of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also led to companies to invest excessive money on defense.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Most cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees, and other tradesmen working on buildings that were or were made with asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed to asbestos fibers that were dangerous during the process of manufacturing or when working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from exposure to asbestos engulfed the courts. This happened in federal and state courts across the country.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their illnesses resulted from negligent manufacture of asbestos products and that companies did not inform them of the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, a majority were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, recognizing that this litigation constituted "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes hundreds of federal and state cases which claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.
Many of the defendants had been involved in other asbestos-related claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc., successors to E.I. Dupont, W.R. Grace and Company Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation, Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.