McLaughlin v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2024)

Our plain-English summary of McLaughlin v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, June 11, 2024).

Thomas McLaughlin, a steamfitter and welder, and his wife Lillian sued many defendants over his asbestos exposure. The exposure allegedly occurred at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in Suffolk County, New York, from 1978 through 1982. After he developed mesothelioma, diagnosed in January 2022, the plaintiffs, now including his estate's executor, continued the case. The Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) had earlier won summary judgment. It argued that the plaintiffs released all asbestos exposure claims against it in a 1993 Settlement Agreement and General Release. That release ended a federal asbestos action begun in 1988. The plaintiffs asked the court to reargue and vacate that ruling. They said mesothelioma could not have been contemplated in 1993 because it was not diagnosed until 2022. The court denied the motion. It found the release unambiguous and found that it clearly contemplated mesothelioma as an asbestos-related disease for which claims were waived. The plaintiffs repeated arguments already decided and did not identify any facts or law the court had overlooked or misapprehended.

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
• Decided: June 11, 2024
• Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 33020(U)
• Stage: Other
• Unpublished opinion. Many courts limit citing unpublished opinions as precedent.
• State: New York

Outcome. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue its earlier order, leaving in place summary judgment for defendant LILCO based on the 1993 settlement and general release.

What the court held. A motion to reargue under CPLR 2221(d)(2) requires a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended facts or law. The release's unambiguous language covered mesothelioma as an asbestos-related disease, so the claims against LILCO were released.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery, Settlements and Releases.

The people and their exposure

• Thomas R. McLaughlin: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Thomas R. McLaughlin	steamfitter and welder (power plants and utilities)	Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, New York	1978-1982

The defendants

• Long Island Lighting Company d/b/a LIPA (premises owner)

Other decisions in this case

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

• McLaughlin v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (December 6, 2023). The court granted Long Island Lighting Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the McLaughlins' complaint and all cross-claims against it, because their 1993 settlement and general release barred the claims; the action continued against the other defendants.

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.

2024 NY Slip Op 33020(U)

THOMAS R. McLAUGHLIN, LILLIAN J. McLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff,

v.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS,

INC., ALFA LAVAL INC., AMETECK, INC., ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. AURORA PUMP

COMPANY, BLACKMER, BW/IP, INC. AND ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, CARRIER

CORPORATION, CLEAVE-BROOKS, INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

INC. COURTER & COMPANY INC., CRANE CO., CROSBY VALVE, LLC, EXXONMOBIL OIL

CORPORATION, FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-

INTEREST TO BLACKMAN PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, AS

SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION, FLOWSERVE US INC., SOLELY

AS SUCCESSOR TO ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EDWARD VALVES, INC.,

NORDSTROM VALVES, INC., AND EDWARD VOGT VALVE COMPANY, FLSMIDTH INC., F/K/A

FULLER COMPANY, FMC CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF ITS FORMER CHICAGO PUMP,

PEERLESS PUMP AND NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES, FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY

CORPORATION, GARDNER DENVER, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GEORGE A. FULLER

COMPANY, THE GERARD PACKING & BELTING CORP., GEROSA INCORPORATED, GOODYEAR

CANADA INC., THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, GOULDS PUMPS LLC, GREENE,

TWEED CO., INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., F/K/A ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., AS

SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE BENDIX CORPORATION, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., ITT INC.,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BELL & GOSSETT PUMP COMPANY,

JENKINS BROS., KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER COMPANY, MARIO & DIBONO PLASTERING

CO., INC., THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY, NATIONAL GRID GENERATION LLC, O'CONNOR

CONSTRUCTORS, INC., PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, F/K/A VIACOMCBS INC., F/K/A CBS

CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, F/K/A VIACOM INC., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO

CBS CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, F/K/A WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC

CORPORATION, PNEUMO ABEX LLC, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ABEX CORPORATION, RILEY

POWER INC., SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC. SPIRAX SARCO, INC., TISHMAN LIQUIDATING

CORPORATION, TREADWELL CORPORATION, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VELAN VALVE

CORPORATION, WARREN PUMPS LLC, WEIR VALVE & CONTROLS, USA, INC., YORK

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC, EATON CORPORATION, AS

SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER, INC., CLYDE UNION INC., GRINNELL LLC, ITT

LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO HOFFMAN SPECIALTY

MANUFACTURING CO., MET-PRO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, A CECO ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY,

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO MET-PRO CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF ITS DEAN PUMP

DIVISION, ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ALLEN-BRADLEY

COMPANY, LLC, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS SQUARE D

COMPANY, VIKING PUMP, INC., BMCE, INC., F/K/A UNITED CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS, KAMCO

SUPPLY CORP., MORSE TEC LLC., F/K/A BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC., AS SUCCESSOR-BY-

MERGER TO BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE

PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, TACO,

INC., LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY D/B/A LIPA, Defendant.

Index No. 190046/2022, Motion Seq. No. 006.

Supreme Court, New York County.

Motion June 11, 2024.

August 27, 2024.

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

It is ordered that plaintiffs', Lillian J. McLaughlin, individually and as executrix of the estate of Thomas R. McLaughlin, and Thomas R. McLaughlin II, as executor of the estate of Thomas R. McLaughlin, motion to reargue this Court's prior Decision/Order dated March 13, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "Prior Decision"), and to vacate such order, is denied for the reasons set forth below.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against various defendants seeking monetary damages for personal injuries resulting from plaintiff Thomas McLaughlin's exposure to asbestos allegedly from working as a steamfitter and welder at defendant Long Island Lighting Company's d/b/a LIPA ("LILCO") Shoreham Nuclear Power Station located in Suffolk County, New York from 1978 through 1982. By prior motion (mot. seq. no. 003), defendant LILCO moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it on the grounds that plaintiffs released all claims of asbestos exposure against LILCO in 1993 when plaintiffs signed a Settlement Agreement and General Release in resolution of a federal asbestos action against LILCO which was commenced in 1988. Such motion was granted by the Prior Decision.

Here, plaintiffs move to reargue the Prior Decision and have the Court issue an Order vacating such Prior Decision and denying defendant LILCO's motion for summary judgment. Defendant LILCO opposes. CPLR 2221(d)(2) permits a party to move for leave to reargue a decision upon a showing that the court misapprehended the law in rendering its initial decision. "A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted only upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision." William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 (1st Dep't 1992), appeal denied in part, dismissed in part 80 NY2d 1005 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).

However, plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Court, in its Prior Decision, misapprehended or overlooked the facts or law in finding that the 1993 Settlement Agreement General Release preclude plaintiff's asbestos exposure claims against LILCO in the instant action. Plaintiff argues that mesothelioma could not have been contemplated in the Settlement Agreement and General Release because plaintiff was not diagnosed with until January 2022. As determined by the Court in its Prior Decision and as correctly argued by defendant LILCO, the language in the Settlement Agreement and General Release was unambiguous and clearly contemplated mesothelioma as an asbestos-related disease that may arise, and for which plaintiff waived all claims. The defendant further correctly argues that the Court did not overlook or misapprehend matters of fact or law in the Prior Decision, as plaintiffs now raise the same arguments that were previously considered and decided. Plaintiff has wholly failed to establish which facts or law were misapprehended by the Court. As such, the motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to reargue this Court's Prior Decision is denied in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that, within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve upon all parties a copy of this decision and order, together with notice of entry.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Sources

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