Causation in Asbestos Cases

Decisions in our library in which the court ruled on medical or specific causation: 1,200 cases, by state. Each line gives what the court held, in our words; the law differs from state to state and changes, so read the opinion and talk to a lawyer before relying on any of them.

New York

• Gartner v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2022). A summary judgment movant must affirmatively prove its entitlement to judgment rather than point to gaps in the opponent's proof. A conclusory affidavit lacking personal knowledge, and exposure evidence that does not address the specific product and work setting, does not meet that burden.
• Katechis v. Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp. (2022). A defendant moving for summary judgment on causation must unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury; an industrial hygienist's dose opinion does not establish the absence of medical causation, and plaintiff's medical expert reports raise a triable issue.
• Olson v. Johnson & Johnson (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2022). A plaintiff in a toxic tort case must present expert testimony giving a scientific expression of the level of exposure sufficient to cause the disease; testimony that exposure was a significant amount above normal background levels is insufficient.
• Moutal v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2022). A defendant seeking summary judgment on specific causation must make a prima facie showing, such as a study of the plaintiff's actual exposure levels with its product in his work setting; a reconstructed dose estimate without such a study is not enough, and pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof does not meet that burden.
• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (2022). In toxic tort cases a plaintiff must use expert testimony based on generally accepted methodologies to show exposure to levels of the toxin sufficient to cause the illness. Exact quantification is not required, but the proof must give a scientific expression of the plaintiff's exposure level. Statements that exposure was low or significant, a sentinel-event theory, and regulatory limits do not meet that requirement.
• Niedert v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2022). A summary judgment movant must first make a prima facie showing on causation; a general dose-reconstruction analysis that does not address the plaintiff's specific exposure, together with a competing expert view on asbestos and lung cancer, leaves a factual dispute for a jury.
• Pomponi v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (1st Dept., 2022). To show specific causation, a plaintiff must offer evidence tying the level of asbestos exposure to an amount known to cause the illness; evidence that a worker was in asbestos-laden dust, without a correlation between exposure levels and a harmful dose, is insufficient.
• Pritt v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). Under maritime law, a plaintiff must show exposure to the defendant's own product and that the product was a substantial factor in causing the disease. Minimal exposure, or exposure only to another maker's component, is not enough. Maritime law also allows loss of consortium and punitive damages in a non-Jones Act claim.
• Theophil v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2022). A defendant seeking summary judgment on specific causation must show actual exposure levels tied to its own product and the plaintiff's work setting; an expert's worst-case theoretical assumptions, such as those based on the inverse square law, do not meet that burden.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (2022). A defendant moving for summary judgment cannot meet its burden by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof. It must unequivocally show its product could not have contributed to the injury. Under the NYCAL case management order, a pending motion does not automatically stay discovery.
• Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (Erie, 2022). Under Nemeth, an expert need not quantify exposure precisely if the methods used are generally accepted in the scientific community. Where a defendant invokes CPLR Article 16 apportionment, the plaintiff may invoke the reckless disregard exception of CPLR 1602(7).
• Zicklin v. Bergdorf Goodman Inc. (2022). Conflicting expert opinions on whether the product caused the plaintiff's mesothelioma raise issues of fact and credibility that cannot be resolved on summary judgment, and a plaintiff's alleged other asbestos exposure from cigarettes does not eliminate those fact issues.
• Berger v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2021). Conflicting expert evidence on whether talc contained asbestos and caused the disease raises fact issues defeating summary judgment on causation. A bulk supplier that adequately warned the intermediary manufacturer, a sophisticated user, has no duty to warn the end user of the intermediary's finished products.
• Camiolo v. American Biltrite Inc. (2021). In an asbestos action, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment absent proof that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from its products, but a defendant's prima facie showing fails to win summary judgment where the opposition raises fact issues about product identification and whether its tiles contained asbestos.
• Esposito v. Abb, Inc. (2021). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must show its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury; it cannot meet that burden by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof.
• Faivor v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2021). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must first show its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's disease. Conflicting expert opinions on whether chrysotile causes peritoneal mesothelioma raise fact issues for a jury. A summary judgment motion must also include the statement of material facts required by 22 NYCRR 202.8-g.
• Greene v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2021). Conflicting expert opinions on whether chrysotile exposure from the defendant's product can cause mesothelioma raise credibility issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. A Frye hearing is not warranted where the defendant has not shown the plaintiff's expert methods lack general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.
• Davis v. CompuDyne (In re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (Erie, 2021). Expert reports attached to an attorney affirmation are inadmissible hearsay and cannot meet a movant's initial summary judgment burden; competing expert opinions on causation present a jury question.
• Johnson v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2021). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must show affirmatively that its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury; merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof does not meet that burden.
• Kriz v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (Rockland, 2021). An asbestos defendant seeking summary judgment must first show that its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury, and cannot meet that burden by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof. A duty to warn in a take-home exposure case can extend to a roommate who lived in close quarters with the worker.
• Love v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2021). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must show its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury; testimony identifying the defendant's products and the dust they created raised a fact issue. A successor holding the brand's assets only for a set period is not liable for products sold by other entities outside that period.
• Milan-Leal v. Brenntag N. AM. (2021). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must show its product could not have contributed to the injury, and it cannot meet that burden by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof. Strict liability may be imposed on retailers, and indemnification claims are premature until the underlying claims are resolved.
• Pistone v. American Biltrite, Inc. (2nd Dept., 2021). In toxic tort cases an expert opinion must show exposure, general causation and specific causation, and conflicting expert opinions on these points raise a credibility question for the jury rather than permitting summary judgment.
• Sprague v. Abb, Inc. (2021). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must make a prima facie showing that its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury; it cannot meet that burden merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof.
• Fischer v. American Biltrite, Inc. (1st Dept., 2020). A defendant moving for summary judgment in an asbestos case must first show unequivocally that its product could not have contributed to the decedent's injury; pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof does not meet that burden.
• Lamenta v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). In a toxic tort case, expert opinion must show both that the toxin can cause the injury and that the plaintiff was exposed to enough of it to do so (the Parker and Cornell standards, which the court applied to asbestos cases). Conclusory expert reports and an unsworn expert report cannot raise a fact issue against a defendant's prima facie showing.
• Luca v. Whittaker, Clark and Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). A defendant cannot win summary judgment in an asbestos case by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof; it must show its product could not have contributed to the illness. Conflicting expert reports on general and specific causation raise fact issues that cannot be resolved on motion papers.
• Luca v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). A defendant cannot win summary judgment in an asbestos case by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof, and conflicting expert reports on general and specific causation raise credibility issues that a court cannot resolve on motion papers.
• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Mineral (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). A court may grant renewal in the interest of justice to allow expert reports in proper form where the failure to submit them earlier was inadvertent and the other side shows no prejudice. Conflicting expert reports on general and specific causation raise fact issues that bar summary judgment, and a venue change motion served long after the answer is untimely.
• Mauro v. John E. Potente & Sons (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must make a prima facie showing through admissible evidence that its product did not contribute to the illness, and cannot do so merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof or by relying on an attorney's affirmation.
• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Minerals (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). In asbestos cases under New York toxic tort law, plaintiffs must offer admissible expert evidence of exposure sufficient to cause the disease. Unsworn or improperly affirmed expert reports cannot defeat summary judgment, and reports filed after the motion was submitted will not be considered.
• Rivera v. Ericksson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must make a prima facie showing that its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's illness, and it cannot do so with a conclusory affidavit, an unsworn expert report, or by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof.
• Rivera v. Meriden Molded Plastic (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). A defendant in an asbestos case cannot win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof; it must first unequivocally show its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's disease. Evidence and arguments raised for the first time in reply papers are not properly considered.
• Richards v. American Biltrite (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dis. Asbestos) (Erie, 2020). In asbestos cases a defendant seeking summary judgment must first unequivocally show its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's disease. Even if it did, competing expert affidavits on general and specific causation raise fact issues for trial.
• Stock v. Jenkins Bros. (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (4th Dept., 2020). A plaintiff need not quantify exposure precisely or use dose-response data to prove specific causation; evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of the agent known to cause the harm, including expert opinion drawing on studies of similar work, suffices. A verdict sheet need not list loss of services and loss of society as separate items.
• Matter of Gimber v. Eastman Kodak Co. (3rd Dept., 2020). Under Workers' Compensation Law § 44, apportionment to a prior employer requires evidence of when the occupational disease was contracted; unquantified prior exposure and speculative medical opinions do not establish that the disease began during the prior employment.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (1st Dept., 2020). Expert testimony that visible dust from gaskets known to contain 50% to 85% asbestos necessarily contained enough asbestos to cause mesothelioma can establish specific causation without a quantified exposure level. The court treated Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Juni) as turning on its own particular record.
• Stiglitz v. Homasote Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury; pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof, or relying on conclusory expert and corporate affidavits contradicted by its own interrogatory answers, does not meet that burden.
• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (1st Dept., 2020). Under Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., a toxic tort plaintiff need not precisely quantify exposure, and an estimate based on the plaintiff's own use history plus testing of the product's fiber release can support specific causation. Where the trial court effectively apportioned 0% to settling defendants who were left off the verdict sheet, General Obligations Law § 15-108 offsets are computed by the aggregate method.
• Olson v. Brenntag N. Am., Inc. (2020). A jury could rationally find that J&J's talcum powders exposed the plaintiff to asbestos, that this exposure caused her mesothelioma, and that J&J's conduct warranted punitive damages. The compensatory award was excessive, and a 12:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio was unconstitutionally excessive, so the court capped it at 7:1.
• Phelps v. CBS Corporation (2020). An expert may give specific-causation and exposure opinions in response to hypothetical questions based on facts established elsewhere at trial, and challenges to the factual assumptions go to weight rather than admissibility. Testimony from the worker, a naval expert and an industrial hygienist was enough to create a genuine factual dispute on whether exposure from Crane Co. valves was a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma.
• Schrank v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2020). In a toxic tort asbestos case, plaintiffs' expert opinions must show exposure to sufficient levels of asbestos from the particular defendant's product to cause the disease. Opinions that give no basis for estimating exposure from that defendant's products do not raise a triable issue on specific causation.
• Ford v. AO Smith Water Products (1st Dept., 2019). An award for future pain and suffering that deviates materially from reasonable compensation may be reduced under CPLR 5501(c), where the jury found the decedent would live only one month. Expert testimony that the asbestos dust quantities were sufficient to cause mesothelioma was adequate, and a 25% liability allocation to the boiler maker was not against the weight of the evidence.
• Lattanzio v. Rockwell Automation (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). A defendant seeking summary judgment in an asbestos case must make a prima facie showing that its product did not contribute to the plaintiff's illness, and pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof is not enough. Conflicting expert reports on general and specific causation raise fact issues that cannot be resolved on motion papers.
• Rothlein v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). A company that buys another's assets is not liable for the seller's torts unless one of four exceptions applies (assumption, merger, mere continuation, fraud). A defendant cannot win summary judgment on causation by pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof; it must show its product could not have contributed to the illness.
• Rosen v. Fisher Scientific Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). A defendant cannot win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof and must make a prima facie showing that its product did not contribute to the disease; conflicting expert evidence on general and specific causation under Parker and Cornell raises fact issues that cannot be resolved on papers.
• Carlstrand v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). A defendant cannot win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof, and conflicting expert reports on whether chrysotile in vinyl asbestos floor tile can cause mesothelioma raise credibility and fact issues that cannot be resolved on papers.
• Carlstrand v. Mannington Mills (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). A defendant cannot win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof, and conflicting expert opinions on general and specific causation raise credibility issues of fact that cannot be resolved on motion papers.
• Carlstrand v. Domco Prods. of Texas (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). A defendant cannot win summary judgment on causation by pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof; it must first make a prima facie showing that its product did not contribute to the plaintiff's illness. Plaintiffs' late notice that they would pursue punitive damages, contrary to the case management order, supported dismissing that claim.
• Surace v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). A defendant cannot win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in plaintiffs' proof. Conflicting expert reports on general and specific causation, applying Parker and Cornell, raise fact issues that cannot be resolved on the papers.