Bille v. Hedman Resources (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v Hedman Resources, Ltd., 2000)

Our plain-English summary of Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v Hedman Resources, Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, July 7, 2000).

Ambrose D. Bille and others sued Hedman Resources, Ltd. and other makers and distributors of asbestos products in 1987 over injuries from asbestos exposure. In 1991 Bille settled with Hedman and signed a general release. At that time he had been diagnosed with pleural disease. In 1998 he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and brought a new action over that condition. Hedman moved for summary judgment, arguing the release barred the new suit. The trial court denied the motion, and Hedman appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed. It said a release in a personal injury case may be set aside for mutual mistake where there was a mistaken belief that an injury did not exist. It found fact issues about what the parties knew of Bille's injuries and whether they intended to release liability for unknown injuries. The appeal from the denial of summary judgment in the second action (Peterman) was dismissed upon stipulation. The opinion does not describe where or how Bille was exposed.

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: July 7, 2000
• Citation: 274 A.D.2d 955
• Stage: Appeal from summary judgment
• State: New York

Outcome. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Hedman Resources' motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiff Bille's mesothelioma action alive, and dismissed the appeal in Action No. 2 upon stipulation.

What the court held. A release in a personal injury case may be set aside for mutual mistake where there was a mistaken belief that an injury did not exist, and fact issues about the parties' knowledge of the injuries and their intent to release unknown injuries preclude summary judgment.

Issues decided: Settlements and Releases.

The people and their exposure

• Ambrose D. Bille: mesothelioma, pleural plaques and thickening

The defendants

• Hedman Resources, Ltd. (manufacturer)

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 v HEDMAN RESOURCES, LTD., 274 AD 2d 955 - NY: Appe… 274 A.D.2d 955 (2000)

711 N.Y.S.2d 812

In the Matter of EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

AMBROSE D. BILLE, Respondent, etal., Plaintiffs,

v.

HEDMAN RESOURCES, LTD., Appellant, etal., Defendants. (Action No. 1.)

ROBERT J. PETERMAN et al., Respondents, etal., Plaintiffs,

v.

HEDMAN RESOURCES, LTD., Appellant, etal., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

Decided July 7, 2000.

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

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

Appeal from order insofar as it denied motion for summary judgment in action No. 2 unanimously dismissed upon stipulation and order affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

In 1987 Ambrose D. Bille (plaintiff) and others commenced an action against Hedman Resources, Ltd. (defendant) and other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained as the result of exposure to asbestos. In 1991 plaintiff settled that action with defendant and signed a general release. At the time the release was signed, plaintiff had been diagnosed with pleural disease. In 1998 he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Following that diagnosis, plaintiff commenced the instant action, alleging that his present condition resulted from his exposure to asbestos and seeking to recover damages for that condition. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it on the ground that the general release signed by plaintiff bars him from instituting this action.

Supreme Court properly denied the motion. "It is now well settled that in a personal injury case, a release may be set aside on the ground of mutual mistake if there is `a mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of an injury' (Horn v Timmons, 180 AD2d 717, 718; see, Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 564)" (Carola v NKO Contr. Corp., 205 AD2d 931, 932). The court properly determined that "there are issues of fact both as to the parties' knowledge of the injuries suffered, and their intention to release liability for unknown injuries" (Mangini v McClurg, supra, at 560).

Sources

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