Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York appellate court held that jurisdictional discovery was warranted in a case alleging liability for a deceased welder’s alleged exposure to asbestos contained in safety gloves.

Here, the estate of welder Giacinto Pira sued Steel Grip, Inc. (SGI) and others, seeking damages for Pira’s asbestos exposure. The trial court denied SGI’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery.

Affirming, an intermediate appellate court noted that at his deposition, Pira had testified that he thought his employer had purchased SGI’s asbestos-containing safety gloves in New York and gave the gloves to him to use for welding. Such testimony raises an issue of fact as to the existence of the requisite purposeful business transactions in New York required for assertion of long-arm jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. §302(a)(1), the court said. Moreover, the court found that Pira’s testimony raised an inference that his injuries resulted from the asbestos inside the gloves, which ripped open while he was using them. The testimony, the court added, provided a sufficient nexus between the plaintiff’s cause of action and SGI’s alleged New York business transactions.

Citation: In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2022 WL 16556688 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 1, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: Jason P. Weinstein, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Comment: In Galier v. Murco Wall Prods., Inc., 2022 WL 14558511 (Okla. Oct. 25, 2022), Oklahoma resident Michael Galier was exposed to asbestos in Oklahoma during the 1970s, when he and his brothers went to construction sites with their father and played with dried clumps of drywall joint compound. During this time period, Murco Wall Products, Inc., a Texas corporation, sold asbestos-containing joint compound in Oklahoma. In 2012, Galier was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He sued Murco Wall Products, alleging claims for negligence and products liability and asserting he was harmed by his exposure to Murco’s products. The defendant moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant should be subject to both general and specific jurisdiction because he, as an Oklahoma resident, was injured in the state by the defendant’s joint compound sold in the state. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury later found for the plaintiff, finding the defendant 40% responsible. An intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the state high denied certiorari; however, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The intermediate appellate court then found that the state had properly exercised specific jurisdiction over Murco and affirmed the trial court. Affirming, the state high court noted that Murco’s contacts with Oklahoma were not random, isolated, or fortuitous in that the company had sold over 24,000 units of asbestos-containing joint compound to numerous Oklahoma customers and also worked with a local company to place its label on Murco’s joint compound. Citing case law, the court said that Murco’s continued sales in Oklahoma made it foreseeable that the company should reasonably have anticipated being haled into court there. The plaintiff was represented by AAJ member Steven T. Horton, Oklahoma City, Okla.; and AAJ members Jessica M. Dean, Charles W. Branham III, and Lisa White Shirley, all of Dallas.

See also Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp., No. E174717/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Niagara Cnty. Nov. 4, 2022). There, Benedict Viglietta was exposed to asbestos while employed at the Durez chemical plant in North Tonawanda, N.Y., where bags of asbestos were poured into mixers, creating dust. He also was exposed to Hedman Resources Ltd. cationic fiber during his work. After being diagnosed as having pleural mesothelioma, Viglietta and his wife sued Hedman Resources, alleging negligent failure to warn. The jury awarded $2 million for pain and suffering, finding that the defendant had acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and was 35% at fault. The jury also found that Johns-Manville was 65% liable for failing to adequately warn. The trial court denied the defendant’s posttrial motions. AAJ member Joseph W. Belluck, New York City, represented the plaintiffs.