throbber
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01312018 01:36 AM
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO. 952
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`IND
`EX NO.
`190219/2016
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
` VYSC
`
` flIV flD
` 3F:
`
`01/13/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`Exhibit P
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`.
`
`AJO
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURT OF THE STATB OF NEW YORK
`OF NEW YORK - PART 57
`
`PRESENT:
`
`Hon. Marcy S. Friedman,
`
`JSC
`
`II
`
`IN RE: NEW YORK ASBESTOS
`
`IJTIGATION,
`
`JOHN MATTESON,
`JOHN LUSTENRING,
`
`Index No. 105240/01
`Index No. 105155/01
`
`X
`
`x
`
`DECISION/ORDER
`
`In these asbestos cases, defendant The Okonite Company ("Okonite")
`
`moves for
`
`judgment
`
`==".=-.""
`.=-."
`notwithstanding
`
`—
`
`the venlictin
`
`the Matteson
`
`case, and defendant
`
`Jolm Crane,
`
`Inc.
`
`(%hn
`
`Crane") moves
`
`for the same relief
`
`in the Matteson and Lustenring
`
`cases. Defendants
`
`argue that
`
`the evidence is insufficient
`
`to support
`
`the verdicts in plaintiffs'
`
`favor,
`
`that
`
`the verdicts
`
`should be set aside based on errors in evidaritiary
`
`adings and juror misconduct;
`
`that
`
`the verdicts
`
`inconsistent;
`
`that
`
`the damage awards are excessive.
`
`97
`
`togo
`
`as to
`
`Matt
`
`of pl
`
`cont
`
`the c
`
`the r
`
`was
`
`Defe
`
`are internally
`
`and,
`
`in the alternative,
`
`Defendant Okonite
`
`contends that
`
`the evidence was insufficient
`
`to support
`
`the jury's
`
`findings
`
`that plaintiff Matteson was exposed to its product, and that
`
`its product
`
`contained
`
`asbestos. R is well settled that a court may not conclude as a matter of law that
`
`the verdict
`
`is not
`
`supported
`
`by sufacient
`
`evidence unless "there is simply no valid line of reasoning
`
`and
`
`permissible
`
`inferences which could possibly
`
`lead rational
`
`[persons]
`
`to the conclusion
`
`reached by
`
`the jury on the basis of
`
`the evidence presented at trial."
`
`chen v
`
`al
`
`Cania.
`
`Inc.. 45 NY2d
`
`t
`
`493, 499 [1978].)
`
`In contrast, a determination
`
`that a verdict
`
`is against
`
`the weight of
`
`the evidence
`
`requires a finding
`
`that "the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair
`
`interpmtation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`
`
`evidence."evidence."
`
`I1 ddo vv
`
`oBcaid
`
`f
`
`
`
`1978j, JaglgtlNII48uc.,uc., 6565 AD2dAD2d 547(2d547 pd DeptDept 1978],
`~aff 1Lo~on 48 NY2dNY2d
`
`
`643643
`
`reasi
`
`then
`
`noe
`
`or th
`
`side:
`
`jury
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`A3V
`
`p979]-)
`
`Under either standard, Mr. hdatteson's
`
`testimony
`
`as to his use of Okonite's
`
`products,
`
`together with circumstantial
`
`evidence,
`
`including
`
`testimony
`
`of plaintiff
`
`s expert, Richard Horan,
`
`as to the composition
`
`of
`
`the products, was sufficient
`
`to raise a jury issue as to whether Mr.
`
`Afatteson was exposed to ashestos-containing
`
`cable manufactured
`
`by Okonite.
`
`Both Okonite
`
`and John Crane further argue that
`
`the court erred in admitting
`
`the testimony
`
`plaintiffs'
`plaintiffs'
`
`of
`
`expert, Dr. Jacqueline Moline,
`
`that visible
`
`dust
`
`from asbestos-containing
`
`products
`
`contains
`
`fibers in a sufficient
`
`quantity
`
`to be hazardous. This argument
`
`in effect seeks to reargue
`
`the court's
`
`trial
`
`ruling on
`
`defendants'
`
`request
`
`for a Frye hearing
`
`The court adheres to that ruling,
`
`the reasons for which were fully
`
`set forth on the recent
`
`The court also finds that a foundation
`
`was laid for the testimony.
`
`(See Carnolo v John
`
`irate Inc., 226 F3d 46 [2d Cir 2000].)
`
`.
`
`C
`
`also challenge
`
`several other significant
`
`rulings.
`
`Defendants
`
`evidentiary
`
`and trial
`
`Defendants
`
`do not
`
`raise new legal arguments,
`
`and the comt adheres to its trial
`
`rulings,
`
`the
`
`reasons for which were generally
`
`set forth at length on the trial
`
`record.
`
`Defendants.'
`
`further
`
`claim ofjuror miscondu.ct
`
`is without
`
`support
`
`in the record. Although
`
`there were personal disagreements
`
`among the jurors, which
`
`are documented
`
`in the record,
`
`there is
`
`no evidence that
`
`the jurors took sides on any of
`
`the issues in the.cases prior
`
`to the deliberations,
`
`.
`
`or that any.personality
`
`conflicts
`
`affected the jurors'
`
`ability
`
`to deliberate fully and fairly
`
`to both
`
`sides.
`
`Okanite
`
`does persuasively
`
`argue, however,
`
`that
`
`the evidence is insufficient
`
`to support
`
`the
`
`jury's
`
`finding
`
`that Okonite
`
`acted recklessly.
`
`Under settled authority,
`
`the level ofconduct
`
`necessary to establish recklessness must satisfy "a gross negligence
`
`standard,
`
`requiring
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Page
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`*K ~PA~
`J'~R.
`~
`~A
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`t.
`
`1
`
`i
`
`i
`
`A38
`
`actor has intentionally
`
`done an act of an unreasonable
`
`character
`
`in disregard ofa known
`
`or
`
`obvious
`
`risk that was so great as to make it highlyprobable
`
`that harm would follow and has done
`
`so with conscious
`
`indifference
`
`to the
`
`outcome."
`
`''
`er of New York City Asbestos Litigation
`
`evWes'
`'
`f Maltese v Westinghouse
`
`Blee. Corp.I... 89 NY2d
`
`955, 956 [I997][intemal
`
`citations
`
`and quotation
`
`marks omitted].)
`
`While there was evidence
`
`from which the jury could rationally
`
`have concluded
`
`that
`
`Okonite
`
`had or should have had knowledge
`
`either dangers to health from exposure to dust
`
`from
`
`asbestos-containing
`
`products, Okonite's
`
`conduct was not reckless because there was no evidence
`
`that Okonite
`
`had knowledge
`
`that "workers
`
`such [as Mr. Matteson] were at risk at any time it
`
`could have warned thern."
`
`04
`
`at 957.) Moreover,
`
`contrary to plaintif
`
`fs contention, Okonite's
`
`membership
`
`in the Association
`
`of American Railroads
`
`is not a sufficient
`
`basis fbr a finding
`
`of
`
`recklessness,
`
`'
`because it bears on Okonite's~ general knowledge
`
`o'
`ofthe
`
`dangers of asbestos, and not
`
`on its knowledge
`
`of dangers to specific workers
`
`in plaintiffs
`
`position.
`
`The jury's
`
`finding
`
`as to
`
`Okonite's
`
`recklessness will
`
`accordingly
`
`be set aside.
`
`Okonite
`
`and John Crane next argue that anew trial should be ordered because the
`
`answers to intermgatories
`
`based on which each case was decided were inconsistent with each
`
`other.
`
`In each case, the jury answered an interrogatory
`
`finding that
`
`the plaintiff
`
`was exposed to
`
`.esbeslos-containing
`
`products
`
`of companies other
`
`than moving defendants.
`
`Specifically,
`
`in
`
`Matteson,
`
`the jury answered interrogatory
`
`7 finding
`
`that Matteson was exposed to the asbestos-
`
`containing
`
`products of 23 other companies, while in Lustenring,
`
`the jury answered interrogatory
`
`6 finding
`
`that he was exposed to the asbestos-containing
`
`products of 12 other companies.
`
`In each
`
`case the jury then found these other companies were not negligent
`
`in manufacturing
`
`or selling
`
`'PagePage -3--3-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`439439
`
`asbestosmontaining
`
`products without
`
`adequate warning (interrogatory
`
`8 in Matteson,
`
`and
`
`interrogatory
`
`7 in Lustenting).
`
`The jmy
`
`thus did not apportion
`
`fault
`
`to any of
`
`these other
`
`companies,
`
`and apportioned
`
`fault only to defendants which had been found negligent
`
`- John
`
`Cranc (45%) and Okonite
`
`(55%),
`
`the sole.defendants
`
`found liable in Matteson (see interrogatory
`
`10); and John Crane (100%),
`
`the sole defendant
`
`found liable in Lustenring
`
`(see interrogatory
`
`9).
`
`Defendants
`
`argue that
`
`the finding
`
`that plaintiffs were exposed to other companies'
`
`products,
`
`is inconsistent
`
`with the finding
`
`that
`
`these other companies were not negligent.
`
`Perhaps
`
`recognizing
`
`that
`
`the findings
`
`are not
`
`inconsistent
`
`on their
`
`face (exposure obviously
`
`does not
`
`mandate a finding
`
`of negligence),
`
`defendants also argue thatthe
`
`jury's
`
`finding that
`
`the other
`
`i
`
`companies were not negligent was against
`
`the weight of
`
`the evidence.
`
`In support of this claim,
`
`they cite the state of
`
`.''"
`the art evidence
`
`"-.admitted
`
`at the trial, which showed that some,.if not all, of
`
`these other companies
`
`had or should have had knowledge
`
`of
`
`the dangers of asbestos.
`
`As plaintiffs
`
`correctly
`
`point out, however,
`
`in order
`
`to establish the other
`
`companies'
`
`negligence,
`
`defendants
`
`had the burden of proving not only that
`
`the other companies knew or
`
`should have known
`
`of
`
`"
`the dangers fmm their ebe..ce-cent±.ing
`
`'""
`
`products, but also they failed to
`''
`in——
`
`.5
`warn of such dangers. .
`
`(Sag
`
`Camolo
`
`v A C & S. Inc.. 1999 WL 147740 [SD NY 1999], as
`.I.da
`
`lart,
`
`vacated 4 rernanded
`
`in DE19n athct grounds 226 F3d 46 [2d Cir 2000]; George v Colotex
`
`. 914 P2d 26, 28 [2d Cir 1990].)
`
`the state of
`
`the art evidence is relevant
`
`to defendants'
`
`knowledge
`
`of the. dangers,
`
`based on the evidence
`
`at trial,
`
`the jury could rationally
`
`have found that defendants did not meet
`
`their burden of establishing
`
`that
`
`the other cotnpanies
`
`failed to warn. Defendants
`
`rely on
`
`Plaintiffa'
`
`testimony
`
`that
`
`they never saw warnings on any cebeeto:
`
`-cc.-.~'"'""
`con9).:ing
`
`products
`
`to which
`
`
`
`Page 4-Page-4-
`
`I
`
`.
`
`'4
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`1
`
`!
`
`'I
`
`fa
`
`I
`
`A40
`
`they were exposed. However,
`
`such testimony by plaintiffs
`
`"did not compel1he
`
`jury to conclude
`
`that
`
`there were,
`
`wamings,"
`suchwarrungs,"
`in fact, no suc.h
`
`ay Owens-Coming.Fiberglass
`.Fiber
`
`Corp.,. 221
`
`AD2d
`
`830, 832 [3d Dept 1995].) Moreover,
`
`defendants do not cite, and the court does not
`
`recall,
`
`any specific
`
`references
`
`in the trial
`
`record to any other company's
`
`lack of warnings.
`
`Under
`
`these
`
`circumstances,
`
`the court cannot
`
`find thatdefendants
`
`sustained their burden of proving
`
`that
`
`the
`
`other companies were negligent
`
`in not giving warnings.
`
`(SAid.)
`
`Finally,
`
`defendants
`
`argue that
`
`the damages were excessive. Under New York
`
`law, an
`
`award is excessive "if
`
`it deviates materially
`
`from what would be reasonable compensation."
`
`(CPLR 5501[c].)
`the "deviates materially"
`
`considered
`
`In Weipl
`
`v Ouincy Specialties Co.
`
`(190 Misc 2d 1 [2001]),
`
`this court
`
`standard at length. As held in Weial.
`
`and best articulated
`
`in
`
`the court must balance respect
`
`for aimy's
`
`award,
`
`federal asbestos cases applying New York law,
`
`recognizing
`
`that a court has no greater expertise than a jury in assessing the value of pain and
`
`suffering,
`
`against
`
`the court's
`
`obligation
`
`and ability,
`
`given its access to information
`
`about other
`
`jury awards,
`
`to ensure that similarly
`
`situated litigants
`
`receive similar
`
`awards.
`
`(190 Misc 2d at 3-
`
`4; Consorti
`
`'
`
`v Amtstrong World
`
`Indus.,
`
`Inc., 72 F3d 1003, 1009 {2d Cir 1995][Consorti
`
`11],
`
`.
`vacated on o_tiler arounds.consorti
`
`v Owens-CorningEiberglas
`
`Corp.,518 US 1031 [1996].)
`
`Given this concern for predictability,
`
`it is not surprising that New York
`
`courts applying
`
`the deviates materially
`
`standard have "looked to awards approved in similar
`
`cases."
`
`(E_es
`
`Gasperini
`
`v Center
`
`for Humanities,
`
`Inc., 518 US. 415, 425 [1996]; Consorti 4 72 F3d at 1012;
`
`Weiul.
`
`190 Misc2d at 4-5 [and authorities
`
`cited therein].)
`
`Indeed,
`
`"case comparison
`
`analysis"
`
`is
`
`mandated by CPLR 5501(c).
`
`(Donion
`
`v City of New
`
`or
`
`284 AD2d
`
`13 [1" Dept 2001].)
`
`However,
`
`the courts have repeatedly
`
`recognized the difficulties
`
`in comparing
`
`injuries
`
`in different
`
`Page-$-
`
`I
`
`Wa
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`A41
`
`cases, given the uniqueness
`
`of each experience
`
`ofsuffering
`
`.
`and the relative paucity of
`
`information
`
`in remittitur
`
`detc:=inations
`
`about
`
`I
`I
`the injuries involved.
`
`r
`I (Sgt Matter of.Ioint Eastern
`
`& Southem
`
`'
`ist.. Asbestos Litigation
`
`~
`
`[Consorti.
`
`
`
`y Annstrong~
`
`World Indus..
`.
`
`~
`Inc,. 9 F Supp 2d
`
`307, 311 [applying New York
`
`law]; So v
`
`in Tat Realty.
`
`Inc.. 259 AD2d 373 [1" Dept 1999];
`
`Sanko v Fonda. 53 AD2d
`
`I
`t
`638 [2d Dept 1976].)
`
`Thus,
`
`~
`~
`the courts have emphasized that each
`
`case must be evaluated on its own facts, and that "c=edsh!e
`
`deference"
`
`I
`should be accorded to
`
`~
`
`the jury's
`
`awarde (Weial.
`
`190 Misc 2d at 4-5 {and New York cases cited~therein]; Consorti.
`
`9 F
`
`Supp 2d at 311, 314; Catuolo.
`
`1999 WL 147740 at 17 [applying New York law].) As recently
`If
`
`explained,
`
`"[c]ase comparison
`
`.I
`
`'
`'
`t
`~
`f
`cannot be expected to depend upon perfect
`
`factual
`
`identity.I
`
`More
`
`
`.cdten,.often, analogous
`often,
`
`cases will be useful as benchmarks."
`. ~
`4
`fl
`
`.''
`(Donlon. 284 AD2d at 16.) Courts
`
`'
`
`li
`
`I
`
`.
`I
`
`undertaking
`
`.
`case comparison
`
`'
`.
`.
`.
`I
`analysis have also noted that "a comt's understanding
`
`of what
`
`is
`
`reasonable
`
`compensation mustnot
`
`runnin
`
`fixed in time, but rather must retain the capacity for
`
`change based on its own experience,
`
`the experience of others, and the deci±±±:
`
`made in
`
`cases."
`
`(Consorti.
`
`9 F Supp 2d at314.
`
`'
`San Matter ofNew York City
`
`Asbestos
`
`'
`Litigation
`
`lo
`
`v Westinghouse
`
`Elec. Corp.1. Sup Ct, NY County, Freedman, J., Feb. 20,
`.
`
`1996, Transcript
`
`of Proceedings,
`
`Ex. D to P.'s Aff.
`
`In Opp., quoted in Consorti.9
`
`F Supp 2d at
`
`315-316.)
`
`In comparing
`
`verdicts
`
`in asbestos cases, the courts have further noted that
`
`the various
`
`methods employed
`
`for assessing a reasonable damage amount
`
`include the application
`
`of (1) a
`
`Percentage method, entailing
`
`a percentage
`
`reduction based on the percentage used to reduce
`
`verdicts
`
`in similar cases;
`
`(2) a monthly multiplier,
`
`anived at by calculating
`
`a figute which
`
`represents an amount
`
`that
`
`is reasonable
`
`for a mesothelioma
`
`victim to be awarded per month of
`
`Page -6-
`
`.
`
`f1 III
`
`I
`
`~a
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`A42
`
`pain and suffering,
`
`and then multiplying
`
`this figate by thenumber
`
`I
`of months of past and future
`
`pain and sufTering; and (3) a totality of circumstances
`17; Consortis 9 F Supp 2d at 317-318.)¹
`
`approach.
`
`(Caruolo,
`
`1999 WL 147740 at
`
`The percentage reduction
`
`and monthly multiplier
`
`approaches have been criticized
`
`as
`
`ignoring
`
`the "human
`
`element"
`
`or factual specifies of each case (id. at318),
`
`and have been
`
`rejected by federal courts applying New York
`
`law in favor of the "totality
`
`of circtunstances'
`
`approach.
`
`(Id.; Caruolos 1999 WL 147740 at 17.) Under
`
`this approach,
`
`the duration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`illness as well as degree of sttffering
`
`arc factors in determining whether
`
`the jury award is
`
`excessive.
`
`(I31.)
`
`In theinstant
`
`cases,each plaintiff
`
`was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
`
`The onset of
`
`plaintiff Matteson's
`
`illness was January 2001, approximately
`
`17 mouths before the date of
`
`The onset of Mr. Lustenring's
`
`illness was April
`
`2000, and he died in August 2001,
`
`approximately
`
`17 months
`
`later. The jury awarded Mr. Matteson 5 million
`
`dollars for past pain
`
`and suffering,
`
`and 8 million
`
`dollars for
`
`future pain and suffering for a period of 24 months.
`
`In
`
`the Matteson
`
`case, a loss of consortium claim was not put
`
`to the jury.
`
`The jury awanted the
`
`estate of Mr. Lustening
`
`5 million
`
`dollars
`
`for pain and suffering. Damages
`
`forloss
`
`of consortium
`
`'The percentage reduction method appears to derive from Didner v Xeene Corp. (NYLJ, Jan. 4,
`188 AD2d 15 [1"
`1991, at 22, col 2 [Sup Ct, NY County 1990]), affd [without discussion of remittitor]
`Dept 1993), m_ocliled 82 NY2d 342),
`in which Justice Helen Freedman, New York's leading jurist
`handling asbestos cases, remitted pain and suffering asbestos awards in 1990 and 1991 litigation.
`(.S_ee
`'
`in v Georgia Pacific Corp. (Sup Ct, NY
`Iri a later decision,
`Consorti, 9 F Supp 2d at 312-313.)
`.(SupCIbbIY
`County, Feb. 3, 1995, Index No. 102757/94), Justice Freedman stated:"While Didner may no longer be
`prevail"
`I believe that reasonablenessshould
`it does not appear that
`hi Manning. moreover,
`controlling,
`Justice Freedman herself applied a percentage reduction folinula. According to case lawreports
`of
`rernittitor decisions by Justice Freedman,
`is no longer
`in 1996, she reiterated that Didner
`and noted "while in the past I have remitted casca to lower amounts,
`it seems thejuries
`are
`continuing to come in with higher verdicts."
`
`vcrdicts,mverdicts."
`(Caruolo. 1999 WL 147740 at 19; Consorti,9 F Supp 2d at
`315.)
`
`PagePage -7--7-
`
`111
`
`I
`i1
`
`II
`
`I
`
`i1
`
`11
`\I
`
`'f.f.
`
`IC
`
`II
`II
`3L
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`A.43
`
`in the amount of 1.5 million
`
`dollars were awarded to his wife.
`
`In aid of
`
`this court's
`
`case comparison
`
`analysis, both sides submitted
`
`summaries
`
`of
`
`asbestos verdicts
`
`for pain and suffering.
`
`These summaries did not distinguish
`
`between awards
`
`for past and future pain and suffering.
`
`Defendants
`
`submitted 25 remitted
`
`verdicts.
`
`The verdicts
`
`for pain and suffering
`
`of approximately
`
`the same duration as plaintiffs'
`
`(18 months and above),'
`
`ranged from 1.5 to 5 million
`
`dollars, broken down by amount per month from a low of
`
`approximately
`
`$83,000
`
`to a high of approximately
`
`$166,000.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`submitted
`
`30 verdicts.
`
`summary
`
`does not appear
`
`to include remitted awards, althougli
`
`it does contain several
`
`verdicts
`
`as to which remittitor motions were denied. Plaintiffs'
`
`unremitted
`
`verdicts
`
`for pain and
`
`suffering
`
`of 18 months and above ranged fmm 5 to 14.6 million
`
`dollars, broken down by amount
`
`per month
`
`highest awards,
`
`from a low of approximately
`listed on plaintiffs'
`
`$212,000 to a high of approximately
`
`$521,000.
`
`The
`
`summary for which remittitur was denied, were in the
`
`!
`
`!
`
`amounts of 6 and 6.5 million
`
`dollars, which broke down to approximately
`
`$187,000 per month
`
`32 months,
`
`and S66,000 per month for 99 months.
`
`On consideration
`
`of
`
`the sample ofmesothelioma
`
`verdicts which were summarized
`
`by the
`
`parties and reported in the case law, as well as consideration
`
`of the totality
`
`of circumstances
`
`of
`
`each pláintiff
`
`s case,
`
`the comt concludes that
`
`the verdicts must be remitted
`
`to the extent set forth
`
`.
`
`below.
`
`Although Mr. Matteson was 74 years old at the onset of his illness, he was in excellent
`
`health prior
`
`to his illness. A robust, gregarious man, he was still actively
`
`involved
`
`in athletic,
`
`social and family
`
`activities.
`
`Shortly after
`
`the onset of his illness, he underwent
`
`9 months of
`
`2No verdicts for a 15 to 17 month period were submitted.
`
`Page-8-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`[ I
`
`..---....-...-.--
`
`-
`
`.
`A44
`
`_
`
`.
`
`......_
`
`.-
`
`------
`
`-
`
`-
`
`,
`
`Ir
`
`, 9 4u J 0 33
`
`.1'i
`
`. chemotherapy,
`
`from which
`
`he suffered adverse effects, and experienced a progressive
`
`deterioration
`
`of his health, becoming
`
`increasingly weak and depressed, The trial
`
`record showed
`
`that he experienced
`
`a,radical
`
`diminution
`
`in his abilityto
`
`participate
`
`in the activities
`
`that he had
`
`enjoyed prior
`
`to his illness.
`
`In addition, his ability
`
`to cate for his wife of over 50 years, who
`
`suffered
`
`from physical
`
`and emotional
`
`problems, was substantially
`
`diminished.
`
`The evidence at trial provides
`
`ample support
`
`for a fmding that Mr. Matteson
`
`is entitled to
`
`an award in the range of
`
`the highest verdicts
`
`for past pain and suffering.
`
`However,
`
`the jury's
`
`verdict of 5 million
`
`dollars appears to substantially
`
`exceed any comparable
`
`verdict
`
`to date. Thus,
`
`without minimizing
`
`the suffering
`
`that Mr. Matteson has endured,
`
`the award for past pain and
`
`dollars
`
`3175,000 per month).
`
`I
`
`Iu
`
`suffering
`
`should be reduced to 3 million
`
`(or approximately
`
`As to future pain and suffering,
`
`the evidence supports the jur y's finding
`
`that Mr. .
`
`Matteson would
`
`live another 24 months, a figure in line with the medical
`
`testimony
`
`as to the
`
`survival
`
`rates for
`
`this incurable
`
`disease. Moreover,
`
`thereis no basis to believe that Mr. Matteson
`
`will not suffer
`
`the almost unimaginably
`
`gruesome final
`
`illness that
`
`the evidence showed is
`
`characteristic
`
`of a death from mesothelioma.
`
`Awards
`
`for future pain and suf Tering in the range of 4 million
`
`dollars have been upheld.
`
`[see
`
`^a==+i
`
`9 9 Supp 2d 307, agga[future
`
`award rernitted to 4 million
`
`dollars
`
`in 1998];
`
`Fallon. Sup Ct, NY County, Ex. 9 to P.'s Aff.
`
`In Opp., aggg[future
`
`award remitted
`
`to 3.6
`
`million
`
`dollars
`
`in 1996].) Relying
`
`on these awards, Okonite argues that
`
`the future swami
`
`for Mr.
`
`Matteson
`
`should be no higher
`
`than 3.6 million.
`
`flowever,
`
`taking into account
`
`the passage of
`
`time and increases
`
`in the amounts ofjury
`
`awards since these awards were upheld,
`
`the court
`
`finds
`
`t(
`
`that an award in the amount of 4.5 million
`
`dollars
`
`for future pain and suffering would not be
`
`
`
`Page-9-Page-9-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`A45
`
`I
`
`excessive.
`excessive.
`
`Turning
`
`to the Lustenring
`
`case,
`
`l¼r. Lusteming,
`
`although in his mid-70s, was physically
`
`and socially
`
`active, and in excellent
`
`health prior
`
`to the onset of his illness. He first experience
`
`symptoms
`
`in April
`
`2000. He underwent
`
`two painful
`
`surgeries (thoracotomics)
`
`in October and
`
`December
`
`2000 to drain pleural effusions.
`
`During
`
`the course of his illness, he experienced
`
`intense pain, shortness of breath, progressive weakening
`
`and weight
`
`loss, and increasing
`
`depression.
`
`His. social and family
`
`activities were increasingly
`
`curtailed until,
`
`in the final months
`
`of his illness, he was unable to do "much
`
`of anything."
`
`As his condition
`
`further deteriorated,
`
`he
`
`became bedridden,
`
`unable to care for himself,
`
`and af$icted with agonizing pain.
`
`Based on the trial
`
`record, and considering
`
`comparable
`
`verdicts,
`
`the court concludes
`
`that
`
`an award to Mr. Lusteming's
`
`estate of 4.5 million
`
`dollars would not be excessive. As to the loss
`
`.
`
`It
`
`II
`
`I I
`
`!
`
`l
`
`II
`
`IIII
`1
`
`of consortium award to Mr. Lusteming's
`
`wife,
`
`there appears to be scant authority
`
`addressing the
`
`reasonableness
`
`of such an award in the asbestos litigation
`
`context.
`
`Arguing
`
`that a percentage
`
`reduction
`
`formula
`
`should be applied to reduce this award to a maximum of $20,000 per month,
`
`defendant
`
`John Crane relies on Didner, whose continuing
`
`authority,
`
`as discussed above,
`
`is
`
`questionable.
`
`Even rejecting
`
`the percentage
`
`reduction
`
`approach, however,
`
`the court
`
`finds that
`
`the
`
`loss of consortium award is excessive. While the record supports the finding that
`
`the Lustenrings
`
`had a long and loving marriage
`
`of over 50 years, and that Mr. Lustenring was a considerable
`
`source of support
`
`to his wife,
`
`the court
`
`finds that
`
`the award should be reduced to S750,000.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`it
`
`is hereby ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the motions
`
`of defendants Okonite and John
`
`Crane are granted to the following
`
`extent:
`
`The fury's
`
`finding
`
`ofrecklessness
`
`against Okonite is struck; and it
`
`is further
`
`
`
`Page -10-Page-10-
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2018 01:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 952
`
`INDEX NO. 190219/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2018
`
`I
`
`t5j
`
`.
`
`I i
`
`\\
`
`A46
`
`ORDERED
`
`that a new trial by plaintiff Matteson
`
`against defendants Okonite and John
`
`Crane is ordered unless plaintiff Matteson stipulates
`
`to the entry of a new judgment
`
`in the
`
`amount of 7.5 million
`
`dollars;
`
`and it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that a new trial by the estate of John Lustonring
`
`and Watalie Lustetaing
`
`is
`
`ordered unless plaintiff
`
`estate stipulates to the entry of a new judgment
`
`in the amount of 4.5
`
`million
`
`dollars, and plaintiff
`
`Natalie Lustenring
`
`stipulates
`
`to the entry of a new judgment
`
`in the
`
`amount of $750,000;
`
`and it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the motions are otherwise
`
`denied.
`
`Settle judgment
`
`This constitutes
`
`the decision and order of
`
`the court.
`
`Dated. New York, New York
`4, 2003
`April
`
`MARCŸ
`
`MAN,
`
`J.S.C.
`
`II
`
`PagePage -l-l 1-l-
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket