Held v. AW Chesterton Co. (2007)

Our plain-English summary of Held v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, June 12, 2007).

Claire Held sued on behalf of her late relative, who died of mesothelioma, naming a number of defendants including Sequoia Ventures Inc., formerly Bechtel Corp. She claimed that Bechtel, as the engineer on a work site, issued insulation specifications that required or allowed asbestos and that this fell below the professional standard of care for engineers. The decedent began working at the site in October 1972. The Appellate Division, First Department, upheld the ruling for Bechtel. It held that the professional-negligence theory was raised for the first time on appeal and so was not properly before it. It added that, in any event, the record showed Bechtel's specifications had been replaced months before the decedent started work by interim specifications from the site owner. Those preferred asbestos-free insulation but still permitted asbestos if the owner found no acceptable substitute. The court said the superseding specifications also barred a Labor Law § 200 claim against Bechtel. It rejected the plaintiff's other arguments.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
• Decided: June 12, 2007
• Citation: 2007 NY Slip Op 05157
• Stage: Appeal from summary judgment
• State: New York

Outcome. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling in favor of Sequoia Ventures (formerly Bechtel), the respondent engineer, and rejected the plaintiff's claims against it.

What the court held. A theory raised for the first time on appeal is not properly before the court. In any event, insulation specifications that the site owner later superseded could not support a negligence or Labor Law § 200 claim against the engineer.

Issues decided: Premises Owner Liability, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Claire Held's decedent (unnamed): mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Sequoia Ventures Inc., formerly known as Bechtel Corp. (contractor)

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

2007 NY Slip Op 05157

CLAIRE HELD, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

A.W. CHESTERTON CO., ET AL., Defendants, SEQUOIA VENTURES INC., formerly known as

BECHTEL CORP., Defendant-Respondent.

IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

Decided June 12, 2007.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Stephen J. Riegel of counsel), for appellant.

Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York (William G. Ballaine of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.

Plaintiff's claim that her decedent's mesothelioma was caused by respondent engineer's issuance of insulation specifications requiring or allowing the use of asbestos at the work site, and that such specifications fell below the then-existing professional standard of care for engineers, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see First Intl. Bank of Israel v. Blankstein & Son, 59 NY2d 436, 447 [1983]). In any event, the record establishes that months before plaintiff's decedent began working at the site in October 1972, respondent's specifications were superseded by interim insulation specifications issued by the site owner that, while indicating a preference for asbestos-free insulation, allowed for their continued use if the owner deemed no available substitute to be acceptable. These superseding specifications would also preclude any Labor Law § 200 claim against respondent based on unsafe work site conditions created by its insulation specifications. We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST

DEPARTMENT.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites