Held v. Sequoia Ventures (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2007)

Our plain-English summary of Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, June 12, 2007).

Claire Held sued individually and as executrix of her husband George Held, who died of mesothelioma. Among the defendants was Sequoia Ventures Inc., formerly Bechtel Corp., an engineering firm. She argued that Bechtel's insulation specifications, which required or allowed asbestos at the work site, caused his disease and fell below the professional standard of care for engineers. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed in Sequoia's favor. It held that the professional-negligence theory was raised for the first time on appeal and so was not properly before the court. It also found that, months before Held began work at the site in October 1972, the site owner had issued interim insulation specifications superseding Bechtel's. These preferred asbestos-free insulation but allowed asbestos if the owner found no acceptable substitute. The court said the superseding specifications also defeated a Labor Law § 200 claim based on unsafe site conditions. 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: 41 A.D.3d 177
• Stage: Appeal from summary judgment
• State: New York

Outcome. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling in favor of Sequoia Ventures (formerly Bechtel), rejecting the plaintiff executrix's claim that the engineer's insulation specifications caused her husband's mesothelioma.

What the court held. A theory raised for the first time on appeal is not properly before the court. The record also showed the engineer's asbestos specifications had been superseded by the site owner's interim specifications before the decedent began work, which precluded the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against the engineer.

Issues decided: Employer and Contractor Liability, and Workers' Compensation, Premises Owner Liability, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• George Held: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Sequoia Ventures Inc., formerly known as Bechtel Corp. (contractor)
• A.W. Chesterton Co. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Croteau v. Treadwell Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (June 26, 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed the order granting Con Edison contractual indemnification against Treadwell for sums paid to Croteau, rejecting Treadwell's arguments.
• DiSalvo v. Neles-Jamesbury (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (December 11, 2014). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., holding it had not met its initial burden, so plaintiff Carl DiSalvo prevailed on the appeal.
• Sweberg v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (October 6, 2016). The First Department reversed the order on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint on that claim. It also upheld the jury's verdict against Crane Co. on failure to warn and recklessness, but found the future pain and suffering award materially excessive to an extent the text does not state.
• Hackshaw v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (October 6, 2016). The First Department affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff Dorcas Hackshaw (executrix of Selwyn Hackshaw) against Crane Co. on liability, but found the award for past pain and suffering excessive and reduced it to the extent indicated (the figure is not in the text).
• Krok v. The Nash Engineering Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (January 26, 2017). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's denial of Nash Engineering Company's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff estate's claim against Nash continued.
• Brown v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (March 28, 2019). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment that capped Con Ed's share at 30% and directed an amended judgment apportioning 65% of plaintiff's total recovery against Con Ed, so plaintiff won and Con Ed lost; Con Ed's cross appeal from the denial of summary judgment was dismissed.
• Macaluso v. A.O. Smith Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (June 18, 2019). The First Department affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff on liability but ordered a new trial on damages unless plaintiff stipulated to further reduce the awards to $4 million for pain and suffering and $1 million for each child's loss of parental guidance.
• English v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (May 21, 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.
• Seen v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (May 21, 2024). The First Department modified the judgment against Kaiser Gypsum, ordering a new trial on pain and suffering damages unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce the $15 million award to $10 million, remanded to recalculate the judgment for settlement offsets, and otherwise affirmed the verdict for plaintiff.

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.

41 A.D.3d 177 (2007)

839 N.Y.S.2d 456

In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

CLAIRE HELD, Individually and as Executrix of GEORGE HELD, Deceased, Appellant,

v.

A.W. CHESTERTON CO. etal., Defendants, and SEQUOIA VENTURES INC., Formerly Known as

BECHTEL CORP., Respondent.

Decided June 12, 2007.

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

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Williams and 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 [*178] 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.

Sources

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