Chrabas v. Owens-Illinois (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, 2000)

Our plain-English summary of Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, June 16, 2000).

Louise Chrabas, individually and as representative of her late husband Dennis J. Chrabas, was one of several plaintiffs who sued A.P. Green Industries, Owens-Illinois and other defendants over asbestos exposure. The decedents had been exposed in New York while living there. They later lived in Florida, where they were diagnosed with mesothelioma and died. Owens-Illinois, a Delaware corporation based in Ohio, asked the trial court to apply Florida law to the rules on allocating losses. The trial court refused and applied New York law. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed. It explained that when the parties live in different states with conflicting loss allocation rules, the law of the place of the tort normally applies unless displacing it would advance the purposes of the substantive law without harming the multi-state system or creating great uncertainty. Because the relationship among the parties was centered in New York, the court saw no persuasive reason to displace New York law. The opinion does not describe the specific workplaces or products involved.

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, 4th Dept.
• Decided: June 16, 2000
• Citation: 273 A.D.2d 863
• Stage: Appeal from other
• State: New York

Outcome. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying Owens-Illinois's motion to apply Florida law to loss allocation issues and directing that New York law apply, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the choice-of-law question.

What the court held. Where parties are domiciled in different jurisdictions with conflicting loss allocation rules, the law of the place of the tort normally applies unless displacing it would advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the multi-state system or creating great uncertainty. The court found no persuasive reason to displace New York law where the parties' interrelationship was centered in New York.

Issues decided: Choice of Law.

The people and their exposure

• Dennis J. Chrabas: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Owens-Illinois, Inc. (manufacturer) · its asbestos trust
• A.P. Green Industries, Inc. (manufacturer) · its asbestos trust

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Stock v. Jenkins Bros. (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (October 9, 2020). The Fourth Department unanimously affirmed the order denying both Jenkins Bros.' and plaintiff Lynn Stock's post-trial motions, leaving the jury verdict for plaintiff in place.

Later decisions citing this one

3 later decisions in our library cite this one:

• English v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2024). The First Department reversed the trial court's denial of Colgate-Palmolive's summary judgment motion, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint against Colgate, ruling against the plaintiff executor.
• Djokic v. United States Steel Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied US Steel's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that Pennsylvania rather than New York workers' compensation law applied, so the plaintiffs' common-law action against US Steel could go forward.
• Voelker v. John Crane (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2015). The court granted plaintiff Janet Voelker's motion, vacating the $250,000 pain and suffering award and ordering a new trial on that item unless defendants stipulate to $600,000, and denied John Crane's cross-motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

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.

MATTER OF EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION, 273 AD 2d 863 - NY: Appellate Div., 4th Dept. 2000 - Google … 273 A.D.2d 863 (2000)

709 N.Y.S.2d 284

In the Matter of EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

LOUISE CHRABAS, Individually and as Personal Representative of DENNIS J. CHRABAS,

Deceased, Respondent,

v.

A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., etal., Defendants, and

OWENSILLINOIS, INC., Appellant.

Decided June 16, 2000.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.

Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

These actions were commenced to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained as the result of the exposure of plaintiffs' decedents to asbestos. The exposure occurred in New York when plaintiffs' decedents were residents of New York. Plaintiffs and plaintiffs' decedents were residents of Florida when plaintiffs' decedents were diagnosed with mesothelioma, when the actions were commenced and when plaintiffs' decedents died. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (defendant) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio.

Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant in each action for an order directing that Florida law be applied to the loss allocation issues in each action and instead directed that New York law be applied to those issues. In cases involving domiciliaries of different jurisdictions that have conflicting loss allocation rules, "the law of the place of the tort will normally apply, unless displacing it `"will advance" the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants'" (Schultz v Boys Scouts, 65 NY2d 189, 201, quoting Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121, 128). Here, "the interrelationship of the parties was centered in New York" (Phelan v Budget Rent A Car Sys., 267 AD2d 654, 655; see, Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., 132 AD2d 550, 552), and "we perceive no persuasive reason to displace the law of this State in the circumstances of th[ese] case[s]" (LaForge v Normandin, 158 AD2d 990; see, Phelan v Budget Rent A Car Sys., supra; see also, Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., supra, at 552).

Sources

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