Reid v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. (1995)

Our plain-English summary of Reid v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, February 23, 1995).

Kenneth Reid sued Georgia-Pacific Corp. and other defendants, including Rapid-American Corporation, for injury he said came from exposure to products and machines containing asbestos. The opinion does not name his disease or his job. Rapid-American moved for summary judgment, and the motion was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, upheld that denial. The court said Rapid-American had not shown, to begin with, that its product could not have contributed to Reid's injury, which alone would have required denying the motion. It also said Reid's papers named specific brands of asbestos products, including Rapid-American's, in use at the work site during the relevant time. They also showed that the various asbestos products were interchangeable there and that he was heavily exposed to asbestos dust. A plaintiff need only show facts from which liability may reasonably be inferred, and on a summary judgment motion only triable questions of fact. The court distinguished two Flintkote cases, where no proof placed opened packages of asbestos in the plaintiffs' exposure zone.

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: February 23, 1995
• Citation: 212 A.D.2d 462
• Stage: Appeal from summary judgment
• State: New York

Outcome. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Rapid-American Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Kenneth Reid's claim against it continues.

What the court held. A plaintiff opposing summary judgment need not show the precise cause of his injury, only facts and conditions from which the defendant's liability may reasonably be inferred. Evidence of specific brands in use, interchangeable asbestos products and heavy exposure at the work site raised triable fact questions.

Issues decided: Causation, Product Identification.

Why this case is relevant

In this short decision, the Appellate Division, First Department, upheld the denial of summary judgment to Rapid-American Corporation in an asbestos injury case. The court stated two rules. First, a defendant seeking summary judgment had to "unequivocally establish" that its product could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury, and failing to do so would by itself have required denial of the motion. Second, the plaintiff did not have to show the precise cause of his injury. He had only to show facts and conditions from which the defendant's liability could reasonably be inferred. The court drew these rules from earlier decisions. It applied them to evidence of specific brands at the work site, interchangeable products and heavy dust exposure.

In the later opinions in our library, this case is cited mainly as a statement of the summary judgment burden in asbestos cases. Many New York Supreme Court decisions quote its "could not have contributed" language, and one called it the "well settled burden." The Appellate Division has also cited it when holding that defendants' motions should be denied. Other courts, including the Appellate Division, cite it for the plaintiff's "reasonably inferred" showing when opposing summary judgment.

This section was drafted with the assistance of WARD, our Worldwide Asbestos Reference Desk, from the opinion and the later decisions in our library that cite it. It is not legal advice.

The people and their exposure

• Kenneth Reid

The defendants

• Rapid-American Corporation (manufacturer)
• Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Later decisions citing this one

181 later decisions in our library cite this one. The 30 from the highest courts, newest first:

• Howard v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2023). The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Armstrong Pumps partial summary judgment for exposure before December 20, 1965 (which plaintiffs conceded), and otherwise affirmed the denial of summary judgment, so plaintiffs Howard and his spouse won on the remaining claims.
• O'connor v. Aerco International, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division reversed the three orders that had granted summary judgment to Fisher Scientific, Thomas Scientific and VWR International, and denied their motions, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Berensmann v. Georgia-Pacific (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2014). The appellate court dismissed the claims about Georgia-Pacific's wallboards because it never made asbestos wallboard, but otherwise affirmed the denial of Georgia-Pacific's summary judgment motion, so plaintiffs' joint compound claims proceed.
• Diedrich v. Robert A. Keasbey Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Robert A. Keasbey Company, so the executrix's claims go to trial.
• Rasso v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2025). The trial court denied defendant Shulton, Inc.'s motion for leave to renew its motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Patricia Rasso, executor of Linda English's estate, kept the earlier denial of summary judgment.
• Caligiuri v. AO Smith Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court denied defendant QCP, Inc. f/k/a Bakers Pride Oven Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Mario and Susan Caligiuri's claims against it continue.
• Caligiuri v. AO Smith Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court denied defendant Olympic Glove & Safety Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Mario and Susan Caligiuri's claims against Olympic continue.
• Pefanis v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied defendant DAP, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiff executrix's claim against DAP continues.
• Pefanis v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied the summary judgment motions of Donald Durham Company and Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC in full, so the estate's claims, including the punitive damages claim against Vanderbilt, go forward.
• Pira v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied defendant Steel Grip, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the estate's claims against Steel Grip continue.
• Savianeso v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court granted defendant QCP (Bakers Pride)'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against it, ruling against plaintiff June Savianeso; the action continued against the other defendants.
• Stiglitz v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court denied general contractor Morse Diesel's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiff's claims against it go forward.
• Tippin v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court granted American International Industries partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Corey Tippin's punitive damages claim against it and denied the rest of its motion, leaving causation for trial.
• Wagner v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied defendant American Biltrite's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Michael Wagner's claims over his mesothelioma proceed to trial.
• Bassier v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court denied defendant Burnham, LLC's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Bassier's claims against Burnham remain pending.
• Gold v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court denied defendant Revlon's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the claims by Victoria Kaye's estate against Revlon continue.
• Hollingsworth v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied McWane, Inc.'s (Clow Valve Company's) motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiff's claim against Clow went forward.
• Horvath v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court denied defendant Ameron International Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Susan Horvath's claims over Rudolf Horvath's exposure to Bondstrand pipes go forward.
• Munoz v. AO Smith Water Prods. CO (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied defendant DAP, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiff Maria Munoz's claims against DAP continue.
• Rasso v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied defendant Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiff's claim against Colgate continues.
• Sason v. Dykes Lbr. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied defendant Dykes Lumber Company's motion for summary judgment on causation, so plaintiff's claim against it continues.
• Barbarino v. BASF Catalysts LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The trial court denied Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Honeywell had not met its initial burden, so the plaintiff, Joan Barbarino, prevailed on the motion.
• Katechis v. Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied defendant Dykes Lumber Company's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiff Agathi Katechis's claim against Dykes proceeds.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied the Watts defendants' motion for summary judgment and partly granted plaintiff Edward Unger's cross-motion for sanctions, with conditional preclusion and $10,000 in costs and fees against each of Watts Water Technologies, Watts Regulator Co. and their law firm.
• Berger v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied Vanderbilt Minerals' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims for lack of causation, but granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims relating to AMACO products under the bulk supplier doctrine.
• Berger v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court granted defendant Gare Incorporated's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against Gare, because Gare did not assume the liabilities of its predecessor, Old Gare.
• Camiolo v. American Biltrite Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court denied Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary judgment, finding plaintiffs raised fact issues on whether decedent was exposed to asbestos from Goodyear floor tiles.
• Esposito v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court denied defendant William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against Powell remain.
• Faivor v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied summary judgment to DAP (without prejudice to renewal on proper papers), Hennessy Industries and American Biltrite, so the plaintiffs' claims against all three go forward.
• Greene v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied Columbia Boiler's motion for summary judgment and its request for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs' claims against Columbia Boiler continue.

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.

212 A.D.2d 462 (1995)

622 N.Y.S.2d 946

Kenneth Reid, Respondent,

v.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. etal., Defendants, and Rapid-American Corporation, Appellant

February 23, 1995

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

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

*463Plaintiff instituted this action to recover for injury allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to products and machines containing asbestos. While defendant's own failure, in the first instance, to unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff's injury would have required denial of its motion for summary judgment (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851), here plaintiff's papers identified specific brands of the subject asbestos products, including those of defendant, in use at the relevant work site during the relevant time, showed that various asbestos products were interchangeable in the work site at the time, and showed that he was heavily exposed to asbestos dust at that site during that time. The plaintiff is not required to show the precise causes of his damages, but only to show facts and conditions from which defendant's liability may be reasonably inferred (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases], 188 AD2d 214, 225, affd 82 N.Y.2d 821). This is particularly true on defendant's motion for summary judgment, where plaintiff is required only to show the existence of triable questions of fact, and where any doubt must be resolved against summary resolution (Henderson v City of New York, 178 AD2d 129, 130). 463

Cawein v Flintkote Co. (203 AD2d 105) and Diel v Flintkote Co. (204 AD2d 53) are not to the contrary. In both of those cases, we noted that no proof was presented which placed opened packages of Flintkote's asbestos in the zone of those plaintiffs' exposure (Cawein v Flintkote Co., supra, at 106; Diel v Flintkote Co., supra, at 54).

Sources

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