Ronsini v. Worthington Corp. (Matter Of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Elaine Ronsini V. Garlock, Inc., 1998)

Our plain-English summary of Matter Of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Elaine Ronsini V. Garlock, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, December 29, 1998).

Elaine Ronsini and Argentina Cardinal sued as executrices of their deceased husbands, Frank Ronsini and John Cardinal, who had mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. The consolidated cases went to a jury in New York City against several companies, and the plaintiffs won. Worthington Corporation and John Crane, Inc. appealed, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed. Mr. Ronsini worked on a ship, where he testified he saw a bag marked "Atlas" and that Atlas cement insulation was the only such product used on board. Mr. Cardinal worked as a pipefitter. The First Department held the evidence was enough for the jury to tie Worthington's asbestos components and Atlas Turner's insulating cement to Mr. Ronsini's injury. It found no basis for a government contractor defense charge and no proof that the Navy's failure to warn broke the chain of causation. It upheld the admission of late-noticed experts and rejected the complaints about the verdict sheet, the jury charge and counsel's comments. It left John Crane's 30% share of fault in place because Crane had not shown the settling defendants' shares. The court found the awards, as reduced by the trial court, reasonable.

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: December 29, 1998
• Citation: 256 A.D.2d 250
• Stage: Appeal from judgment after trial
• State: New York

Outcome. The Appellate Division rejected the challenges by Worthington Corporation and John Crane, Inc. to the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs, and declined to disturb the liability findings, the apportionments or the damages awards as reduced by the trial court.

What the court held. Evidence was sufficient for a jury to link a defendant's asbestos-containing components and products to the worker's injury. A government contractor defense charge was unwarranted without evidence of a conflict between state warning requirements and federal requirements. A defendant that challenges its share of fault must show the equitable shares of the settling defendants.

Issues decided: Fault, Apportionment and Settlement Credits, Causation, Compensatory Damages, Government Contractor Defense and Removal, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Frank Ronsini: mesothelioma; died

• John Cardinal: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Worthington Corporation (manufacturer)
• John Crane, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Atlas Turner (manufacturer)

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Zalinka v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 1995). The appellate court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for plaintiffs John Zalinka and his wife against Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, which lost its appeal.

Later decisions citing this one

6 later decisions in our library cite this one:

• Seen v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 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.
• Lustenring v. AC&S, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs against defendant John Crane, Inc., finding the evidence sufficient, no Frye hearing required, and damages not excessive.
• Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2000). The court denied Atlas Turner's Rule 50 and 59 motions to set aside the roughly $4.29 million mesothelioma verdict or obtain a new trial, and granted Hamilton's motions for discovery and entry of judgment.
• Stock v. Jenkins Bros. (IN the Matter of the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2019). The trial court denied defendant Jenkins Bros.' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial and remittitur, and also denied the plaintiffs' motion for a separate jury charge or new trial on future household services, leaving the verdict for the Stocks in place.
• Ricci v. Cleaver-Brooks (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied Cleaver-Brooks' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Mark Ricci's complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it, so the plaintiff won and the case goes to trial.
• Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assoc. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Tishman Liquidating Corp.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability and the economic damages, but vacated the $7 million and $12 million pain and suffering awards and ordered a new damages trial unless plaintiff Konstantin accepts reductions to $4.5 million and $3.5 million.

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 NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ELAINE RONSINI v. Garlock, Inc., 256 AD 2d 250 - NY: Appellate Div., 1… 256 A.D.2d 250 (1998)

683 N.Y.S.2d 39

In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ELAINE RONSINI, as Executrix of

FRANK RONSINI, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant,

v.

GARLOCK, INC., etal., Defendants, and

WORTHINGTON CORPORATION et al., Appellants-Respondents.

ARGENTINA CARDINAL, Individually and as Executrix of JOHN CARDINAL, Deceased,

Respondent-Appellant,

v.

GARLOCK, INC., etal., Defendants, and

JOHN CRANE, INC., Appellant-Respondent.

Decided December 29, 1998.

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

Concur — Lerner, P.J., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

In these consolidated actions to recover for mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing plaintiffs (Elkins v Ferencz, 253 AD2d 601), we find that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to identify that defendant Worthington's product contained asbestos components that caused Mr. Ronsini's injury. There was evidence that the specifications for the Worthington component required that it supply enough replacement parts for there to be Worthington components still in use at the time of Mr. Ronsini's exposure, and it was reasonable [*251] to infer that such parts had in fact been supplied and used. It is therefore unnecessary to reach this defendant's argument that it is not responsible for replacement parts manufactured or supplied by others. Nor was the jury's determination against the weight of the evidence (Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746).

In the absence of any evidence of a conflict between State warning requirements and any Federal prescription of label information or proscription of a warning, there was no basis for Worthington's requested government contractor defense charge (see, In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 996 F2d 1425, 1436, cert denied sub nom. Hartman v Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 510 US 1140; Russek v Unisys Corp., 921 F Supp 1277, 1292). Nor did this defendant carry its heavy burden of showing that the Navy's failure to warn Mr. Ronsini was so extraordinary and unforeseeable that it broke the chain of proximate causation (see, Pagowski v Martinez, 197 AD2d 400).

The determination that Atlas Turner components contributed to Mr. Ronsini's injury was based upon sufficient evidence and a fair interpretation of the evidence. In addition to Mr. Ronsini's testimony that he saw a 50 to 60 pound bag with the name "Atlas", he testified that Atlas's cement insulation was the only such product that he remembers being used on board the ship where he worked and another seaman testified to similar effect, thus distinguishing the instant situation from those in which the person identifying the product did not see an open bag of the subject product or know that its contents had actually been used (cf., Cawein v Flintkote Co., 203 AD2d 105; Diel v Flintkote Co., 204 AD2d 53; see also, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 212 AD2d 463). Assuming arguendo that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence tending to show the existence of similarly-named entities that may have produced asbestos components, any such error did not influence the verdict because this evidence would have been cumulative of testimony that Atlas Turner did not sell its insulating cement in this country and was prohibited by statute from doing so.

The jury determination that asbestos particles were released by Mr. Cardinal's work as a pipefitter also had a rational basis and was not against the weight of the evidence, inasmuch as the jury merely acted within its province in resolving conflicting testimony on this issue.

Admission of the testimony of the late-noticed expert witnesses was not an improvident exercise of discretion in view of the failure to show that the failure to identify them was either willful or prejudicial (Flour City Architectural Metals v Sky-Lift [*252]

MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ELAINE RONSINI v. Garlock, Inc., 256 AD 2d 250 - NY: Appellate Div., 1… Corp., 242 AD2d 471). Nor was there any error in preclusion of the settling defendants' interrogatories (see, State Univ. Constr. Fund v Kipphut & Neuman Co., 159 AD2d 1003).

The claimed verdict sheet error is unpreserved (Vavosa v Stiles, 220 AD2d 363, 364), and there was no evidence that the jury was confused by the charge on proximate cause (cf., Aragon v A & L Refrig. Corp., 209 AD2d 268), which we find to have been adequate. The comments by plaintiff's counsel now complained of were either the subject of prompt and appropriate curative instructions (see, Mena v New York City Tr. Auth., 238 AD2d 159, 160) or unpreserved (see, Figueroa v Maternity Infant Care Family Planning Project, 243 AD2d 424, lv denied 91 NY2d 807).

As to the challenge of defendant John Crane, Inc. to the apportionment of 30% liability against it, this defendant has not carried its burden of demonstrating the amounts of the equitable shares attributable to the settling defendants (see, Bigelow v Acands, Inc., 196 AD2d 436; Zalinka v Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 221 AD2d 830, 831), and we decline to disturb the jury's determination as to this, and as to the other, apportionments. Under the circumstances, we find that none of the awards, as reduced by the trial court, deviate from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances. We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them to be unavailing.

Sources

• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites