Court Opinion

ID: 9954297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:10:46.706201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:00.722726
License: Public Domain

Carrier v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30934(U)
                     March 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190391/2018
                  Judge: Adam Silvera
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190391/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:       HON. ADAM SILVERA                                     PART                             13
                                                                   Justice
                       --------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                INDEX NO.         190391/2018
            LUCIA CARRIER, AS EXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF
                                                                                MOTION DATE       07/06/2023
            PETER R. CARRIER,
                                     Plaintiff,
                                                                                MOTION SEQ. NO.       004
                                       -v-
            A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO,AMCHEM PRODUCTS,
            INC.,AMERICAN BILTRITE INC.,BURNHAM, LLC,BW/IP, INC.
            AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, CARRIER
            CORP., CERTAINTEED CORP., CLEAVER BROOKS CO.,
            INC, COLUMBIA BOILER COMPANY OF POTTSTOWN,
            COMPUDYNE CORP.N, CRANE CO., CROSBY VALVE LLC,
            CROWN BOILER CO., OAP, INC, DOMCO PRODUCTS
            TEXAS, INC, FLOWSERVE US, INC.,FMC CORP., FORT
            KENT HOLDINGS, INC.,FULTON BOILER WORKS, INC,
            GARDNER DENVER, INC, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
                                                                                  DECISION + ORDER ON
            GOULDS PUMPS LLC,GRINNELL LLC,IMO INDUSTRIES,
            INC, ITT INDUSTRIES, INC.,ITT LLC., KEELER-DORR-
                                                                                        MOTION
            OLIVER BOILER CO., KOHLER CO, LENNOX INDUSTRIES,
            INC, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC, PEERLESS INDUSTRIES, INC,
            PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO.,
            ROPER PUMP CO., SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC, U.S.
            RUBBER CO. (UNIROYAL), UNION CARBIDE CORP., UTICA
            BOILERS,INC,VELAN VALVE CORP,WARREN PUMPS, LLC,
            WEIL-MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF THE MARLEY-WYLAIN
            COMPANY, KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.,

                                             Defendant.
                       ·------------------------------------------------X

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 359, 360, 361, 362,
           363,364,365,366,367,368,369,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383,
           384,385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,400,401,402,403,404,
           405,406,407,408,409,410,411,412,413,414,415,416
           were read on this motion to/for                                   JUDGMENT - SUMMARY

                  Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the instant motion for partial summary

           judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, pursuant to CPLR § 3212,

           is denied for the reasons set forth below.

                  Here, defendant Burnham, LLC ("Burnham") moves for partial summary judgment to

           dismiss plaintiffs punitive damages claim on the basis that asbestos exposure from Burnham

            190391/2018 CARRIER, PETER vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                            Page 1 of 4
            Motion No. 004

                                                             1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190391/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

          boilers would fall below TLV or PEL/OSHA limits and per Burnham's lack of workers'

          compensation claims for asbestos-related disease. See Memorandum of Law in Support of

          Defendant's Burnham, LLC's, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p. 9-11.

                  The Court notes that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted if

          the moving party has sufficiently established that it is warranted as a matter of law. See Alvarez v

          Pro.,pect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must

          make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient

           evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case". fVinegrad v New York

           University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851,853 (1985). Despite the sufficiency of the opposing

           papers, the failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion. See id. at 853.

           Additionally, summary judgment motions should be denied if the opposing party presents

           admissible evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue of fact remaining. See Zuckerman v

           ('ity o/New        49 NY2d 557, 560 (1980). "In determining whether summary judgment is

           appropriate, the motion court should draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

           party and should not pass on issues of credibility." Garcia v JC Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579,

           580 (1st Dep't 1992), citing Daumcm Displays, Inc. v 1Haswr::o, 168 AD2d 204 (1st Dep't 1990).

           The court's role is "issue-finding, rather than issue-determination". S'i!lman v Twentieth Century-

           Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 (1957) (internal quotations omitted). As such, summary

           judgment is rarely granted in negligence actions unless there is no conflict at all in the evidence.

           See Ugarriza l' Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 475-476 (1979). Furthermore, the Appellate Division,

           First Department has held that on a motion for summary judgment, it is moving defendant's

           burden "to unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the causation of

           plaintiffs injury". Reid v Georgia-Pacific C'orp., 212 AD2d 462,463 (1st Dep't 1995).

            190391/2018 CARRIER, PETER vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                           Page 2 of 4
            Motion No. 004

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190391/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                  Defendant Burnham has plainly not met their burden at summary judgment. The

          TL V/OSHA standards have little bearing on plaintiffs unequivocal and consistent testimony

          regarding his work with Burnham boilers and his specific asbestos exposure therein. See

          Affirmation in Opposition to Burnham's Motion for Partial Summary Judment [sic], p. 4-5.

           Similarly, the lack of compensation claims from Burnham's employees are wholly irrelevant to

          moving defendant's conduct as manufacturers of asbestos-containing boilers. Plaintiff correctly

           argues that the single study conducted by William E. Longo, PhD in 2007 is insufficient to

           support partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages herein. In his deposition, Dr.

           Longo concedes that he never conducted any studies on a Burnham boiler. See id., Exh. 7,

           Deposition Transcript of William E. Longo, PhD, dated December 16, 2015, p. 36, ln. 10-12.

                  In Dyer v Amchem Products, Inc., 207 AD3D 408,411 (1st Dep't 2022), the Appellate

           Division, First Department held that to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving

           party must support the motion with a fact specific study. Here, the Longo study provides no

           relevant information regarding the specific products at issue herein, and the specific

           circumstances in which the instant plaintiff was exposed to asbestos through defendant

           Burnham's boilers. Thus, defendant Burnham has failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish

           entitlement to summary judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff has provided evidence sufficient to

           raise questions of fact as to defendant Burnham's prior knowledge of and participation in the use

           of asbestos-containing boiler parts. See Affirmation in Opposition, supra, p. 8-11.

                  Moreover, the Court notes that where a plaintiff provides evidentiary facts tending to

           show that defendant's warnings were in any way deficient, the adequacy of such warnings are a

           factual question that should be resolved by a jury. See Eiser v Feldman, 123 AD2d 583, 584

           (1986). The New York Court of Appeals has also held that "[a] products liability action founded

            190391/2018 CARRIER, PETER vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                             Page 3 of4
            Motion No. 004

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 190391/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

          on a failure to warn involves conduct of the defendant having attributes of negligence which the

          jury may find sufficiently wanton or reckless to sustain an award of punitive damages." Home

          Ins. C'o. v Am. Home Products Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 204 (1990) (internal citations omitted).

          Here, plaintiff has proffered evidence that demonstrates defendant Burnham failed to warn

          plaintiff of the hazards of asbestos. During direct testimony of the corporate representative of

          defendant Burnham, Mr. Sweigart, was asked whether it was correct that "Burnham, never. .. put a

          warning regarding hazards of asbestos on any of its boilers". Affirmation in Opposition, supra,

          Exh. 8, excerpts from the Tr. of Mr. Sweigart from theAssenzio trial group, dated June 19, 2013,

          p. 2778, ln. 14-16. Mr. Sweigart answered "[t]hat's correct." Id. at ln. 20. As such, defendant

          Burnham has failed to demonstrate their prima facie burden that punitive damages are not

          warranted herein. As a reasonable juror could find that defendant Burnham's knowledge and use

          of asbestos in their boilers constituted a prioritization of their corporate benefits over plaintiffs

           safety, issues of fact exist to preclude summary judgment on punitive damages.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that defendant Burnham's motion for partial summary judgment is denied in

           its entirety; and it is further

                   ORDERED that within 30 days of entry plaintiff shall serve all parties with a copy of this

           Decision/Order with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                    3/20/2024
                     DATE                                                           ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

                                      ~
            CHECK ONE:                       CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                             GRANTED         0    DENIED   GRANTED IN PART             □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                     SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:            INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       □ REFERENCE

            190391/2018 CARRIER, PETER vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                                 Page 4 of 4
            Motion No. 004

                                                                 4 of 4
[* 4]