Langhorne v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2005)

Our plain-English summary of Langhorne v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, November 10, 2005).

Richard Langhorne, individually and as administrator of the estate of Peter Consorti, sued Amchem Products, Inc. and other defendants for personal injury and wrongful death. The suit alleged that Consorti developed mesothelioma from inhaling asbestos fibers. The opinion does not describe his work or where he was exposed. Earlier, Consorti had settled a federal lawsuit that alleged asbestosis. In that settlement he signed releases covering "any and all claims" he "may ever have" or "which may arise" from asbestos exposure, and the releases called the settlement "complete satisfaction" of all existing and future asbestos-related claims. The trial court dismissed the new complaint against the defendants-respondents. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed. It found the release language plain and unambiguous and broad enough to cover all possible matters between the parties. Without evidence of duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake about the scope of the releases, the claims were barred, and the plaintiff did not meet his burden on that point.

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: November 10, 2005
• Citation: 2005 NY Slip Op 08605
• Stage: Appeal from motion to dismiss
• State: New York

Outcome. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding the plaintiff's claims against the defendants-respondents were barred by releases the decedent signed in settling an earlier federal asbestosis action.

What the court held. Release language covering any and all present and future asbestos claims is plain and unambiguous and bars later claims, including a later mesothelioma claim, absent evidence of duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake about the scope of the release.

Issues decided: Wrongful Death and Survival, Settlements and Releases.

The people and their exposure

• Peter Consorti: mesothelioma, asbestosis; died

The defendants

• Amchem Products, Inc.

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.

2005 NY Slip Op 08605

RICHARD LANGHORNE, Individually, and as Administrator for the ESTATE OF PETER CONSORTI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL., Defendants-Respondents, AEROFIN CORPORATION, ETC., ET

AL., Defendants.

7028, 7029.

Decided November 10, 2005.

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

Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, New York (Moshe Maimon of counsel), for appellant.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York (Loring I. Fenton of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan, Malone, JJ.

In this action for personal injuries and wrongful death arising from mesothelioma caused by asbestos fiber inhalation, the motion court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground the claims were barred by the releases signed by plaintiff's decedent in connection with the settlement of a prior federal action alleging asbestosis. These documents released defendants-respondents from "any and all claims" that plaintiff's decedent "may ever have" or "which may arise" from his alleged asbestos exposure, and the releases provided that the settlement was in "complete satisfaction" of all existing and future asbestos-related claims. Such language was "plain and unambiguous" (Touloumis v. Chalem, 156 AD2d 230, 232 [1989]) and "embrace[d] all possible matters arising between the parties" in connection with the underlying subject (Mosberg v. National Prop. Analyst, 217 AD2d 482, 484 [1995]). In these circumstances, absent evidence of "duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake" in connection with the scope of the releases (Mangini v. McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 563 [1969]), plaintiff's claims were barred. Here, plaintiff failed to meet his requisite burden.

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