Court Opinion

ID: 9916521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:07.782494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:32.917035
License: Public Domain

Servedio v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34538(U)
                   December 27, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190144/2018
                  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. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:        HON. ADAM SILVERA                                   PART                                13
                                                                  Justice
              ------------------- - - - - - - - - X                            INDEX NO.           190144/2018
            CHARLES SERVEDIO,
                                                                               MOTION DATE         06/30/2023
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                               MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _0_0_2_ _
                                       - V-

            A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO, AMCHEM
            PRODUCTS, INC.,BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC.,
            BURNHAM, LLC,CARRIER CORPORATION,
            CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CRANE CO,
            CYCLOTHERM OF WATERTOWN, INC, DANA
            COMPANIES, LLC,ECR INTERNATIONAL, CORP., H.B.
            FULLER COMPANY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,
            INC.,ITT LLC., J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY,
            KOHLER CO, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC, PEERLESS                             DECISION + ORDER ON
            INDUSTRIES, INC, PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), REYNOLDS                            MOTION
            METALS COMPANY, RHEEM MANUFACTURING
            COMPANY, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.
            FORMERLY KNOWN AS, SLANT/FIN CORPORATION,
            U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL), UNION CARBIDE
            CORPORATION, WEIL-MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF THE
            MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED
            SUBSIDIARY OF, LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,

                                              Defendant.

                 -----------------------------------X
           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 196, 197, 198, 199,
           200,201,203,204,205
           were read on this motion to/for                                    MISCELLANEOUS

                  Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that plaintiffs order to show cause for joint

           trials is granted for the reasons set forth below.

                   Here, plaintiff moves for a joint trial of fifteen actions, to be consolidated into six groups.

           Plaintiff seeks to consolidate these fifteen actions as follows:

            190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                          Page 1 of 10
            Motion No. 002

                                                           1 of 10
[* 1]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

                      Group 1 - plaintiff seeks to consolidate Servedio v AO Smith Water Products Co.,

           190144/2018, with Funicello v Amchem Products, Inc., et. al., 190247/2019. Defendants oppose

           and plaintiff replies.

                      Group 2 - plaintiff seeks to consolidate Frankini v Aerco Int 'l, Inc., et. al., 190165/2020,

           with Bomzer v A.F Rockland Plumbing, et. al., 190019/2020. Defendants oppose and plaintiff

           replies.

                      Group 3 - plaintiff seeks to consolidate McCabe v ABB, Inc., 190036/2019, with Moore v

           AO Smith Water Products Co., 190054/2017, and Surace v Amchem Products, Inc.,

           190017/2014. Defendants oppose and plaintiff replies.

                      Group 4 - plaintiff seeks to consolidate Salinari, Sr. v Air & Liquid Systems,

          · 190151/2019, with Sanese v AO Smith Water Products Co., 190190/2013, and Goldstein v

           Amchem Products, Inc., 190159/2020. Defendants oppose and plaintiff replies.

                      Group 5 - plaintiff seeks to consolidate Ober v Amchem Products, Inc., 190465/2018,

           with Burns v AO Smith Water Products Co., 190016/2019, and Sudano v AO Smith Water

           Products Co., 190175/2017. Defendants oppose and plaintiff replies.

                      Group 6 - plaintiff seeks to consolidate Mooney v Amchem Products, Inc., 190249/2019,

           with Cloonan v Aerco Int'!, Inc., 190014/2019. Defendants oppose and plaintiff replies.

                      The Case Management Order dated June 20, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "CMO")

           states that "[t]wo cases may be joined for trial where plaintiff demonstrates that joinder is

           warranted under Malcolm v National Gypsum Co. (995 F2d 346), and New York State cases

           interpreting Malcolm. Malcolm and its progeny list factors to measure whether cases should be

           joined; it is not necessary under Malcolm that all such factors be present to warrantjoinder."

            190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                             Page 2 of 10
            Motion No. 002

                                                             2 of 10
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

          · CMO, §XXV. B. The factors to be considered under Malcolm are "(1) common worksites; (2)

           similar occupation; (3) similar time of exposure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were

           living or deceased; (6) status of discovery in each case; (7) whether all plaintiffs were

           represented by the same counsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged". Malcolm, 955 F2d at )50-351.

           The United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, further noted that "[c]onsolidation of tort actions

           sharing common questions of law and fact is commonplace. This is true of asbestos-related

           personal injury cases as well." Malcolm, id at 350 (internal quotations and citations omitted). As

           to consolidation of three cases, the CMO states that "[u]pon good cause shown, a Trial Judge in

           NYCAL may join a maximum of three c~ses for trial where it determines that 1) joinder is

           warranted under three or more of the factors described in Malcolm and New York State cases

           interpreting Malcolm, and 2) where the three plaintiffs share the same disease. For purposes of

           this section 'same disease' shall mean that all the plaintiffs in the three cases proposed to be

           joined for trial share one of the following four categories of disease: 1) pleural mesothelioma, or

           2) non-pleural mesothelioma, or 3) lung cancer, or 4) other cancers." CMO, §XXV. B.

                   Plaintiff argues that consolidation of the cases for joint trial as specified in the groups

           above is appropriate. Plaintiff contends that the Malcolm factors were met and consolidation
                                                ,,

           must be granted. Defendants jointly oppose, arguing that the CMO specifically states that no

           more than two cases should be joined but, in several of the proposed groups, plaintiff is

           attempting to join three cases in contravention of the CMO. Defendants further argue that

           plaintiff failed to meet the burden to establish sufficient commonalities amongst the actions, and

           that a joint trial would be contrary to judicial economy and prejudicial to defendants.

                   As to Group 1, the instant action and Funicello v Amchem Products, Inc., et. al.,

            190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                          Page 3 of 10
            Motion No. 002                       ·

                                                           3 of 10
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           190247/2019, after reviewing all the Malcolm factors, the Court finds that plaintiffs, Mr.

           Servedio and Mr. Funicello were both exposed to asbestos through their employment

           maintaining, repairing, and inspecting boilers and through their handling of boilers. Moreover,

           Mr. Servedio and Mr. Funicello' s overlapping period of exposure spanned two decades from the

           1950s to the 1970s. Additionally, both plaintiffs developed lung cancer from which both

           plaintiffs are.currently battling, the discovery in both actions are complete, and the plaintiffs

           have the same counsel. Additionally, defendants Burnham, LLC, Crane Co., Peerless Industries,

           Inc., and Weil-McLain are common defendants. Thus, at least six of the eight Malcolm factors

           have been satisfied.

                  With regards to Group 2, plaintiff seeks to consolidate Frankini v Aerco Int 'l, Inc., et. al.,

           190165/2020, with Bomzer v A.F. Rockland Plumbing, et. al., 190019/2020. In addition to the

           joint opposition by all defend~ts, defendant Union Carbide Corporation submits individual

           opposition papers. Defendant Union Carbide Corporation argues that there are laws and facts

           specific to it in the cases in which it is a defendant, joint trials are not permissible where plaintiff

           seeks punitive damages, and that plaintiff failed to satisfy the Malcolm factors or establish that

           consolidation would not confuse the jury and prejudice defendants. However, despite the

           defendants' contentions, Mr. Bomzer and Mr. Frankini were both exposed to asbestos through

           their employment as plumbers and through their handling of similar materials and equipment

           such as boilers. These two plaintiffs have similar times of exposure in that Mr. Bomzer was

           exposed to asbestos from 1968 to 1986 and Mr. Frankini was exposed to asbestos from 1961 to

           1990. Moreover, both plaintiffs developed lung cancer from which both plaintiffs are currently

           battling, the discovery in both of these actions are complete, and both plaintiffs have the same

            190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                           Page 4 of 10
            Motion No. 002

                                                           4 of 10
[* 4]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           counsel. Additionally, defendants Burnham LLC, Columbia Boiler Company of Pottstown,

           Crane Co., Dunkirk Boilers, ITT Industries, Inc., ITT LLC, Jenkins Bros., Peerless Industries,

           Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Utica Boilers, Inc., individually and as successor to Utica

           Radiator Corporation, and Weil-McLain are common defendants. Thus, seven of the eight

           Malcolm factors have been satisfied.

                   Regarding Group 3, plaintiff seeks to consolidate McCabe v ABB, Inc., 190036/2019,

           with Moore v AO Smith Water Products Co., 190054/2017, and Surace v Amchem Products, Inc.,

           190017/2014: In addition to the joint opposition by all defendants, defendant Union Carbide

           Corporation submits individual opposition papers. Defendant Union Carbide Corporation argues

           that there are laws and facts specific to it in the cases in which it is a defendant, joint trials are

           not permissible where plaintiff seeks punitive damages, and that plaintiff failed to satisfy the

           Malcolm factors or establish that consolidation would not confuse the jury and prejudice

           defendants. However, after reviewing all the Malcolm factors, the Court finds that plaintiffs, Mr.

           McCabe, Mr. Moore Sr., and Mr. Surace, were all exposed to asbestos through their employment

           as union carpenters and through their handling of similar materials and equipment such as floor

           tiles and joint compound. These three (3) plaintiffs have similar times of exposure in that Mr.

           McCabe was exposed to asbestos from 1958 to 1995, Mr. Moore Sr. was exposed to asbestos

           from 1956 to 1990, and Mr. Surace was exposed to asbestos from 1953 to 1995. Additionally, all

           3 plaintiffs developed lung cancer from which all 3 plaintiffs are currently battling, the discovery

           in all of these actions are complete, and the 3 plaintiffs have the same counsel. Thus, seven of the

           eight Malcolm factors have been satisfied.

                   As for Group 4, plaintiff seeks to consolidate Salinari, Sr. v Air & Liquid Systems,

             190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                           Page 5 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                            5 of 10
[* 5]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           190151/2019, with Sanese v AO Smith Water Products Co., 190190/2013, and Goldstein v

           Amchem Products, Inc., 190159/2020. In addition to the joint opposition by all defendants,

           defendants Union Carbide Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (hereinafter

           referred to as defendant "Goodyear Tire"), and DAP, Inc. submit individual opposition papers.

           Defendant Union Carbide Corporation argues that there are laws and facts specific to it in the

           cases in which it is a defendant, joint trials are not permissible where plaintiff seeks punitive

           damages, and that plaintiff failed to satisfy the Malcolm factors or establish that consolidation

           would not confuse the jury and prejudice defendants. Defendant Goodyear Tire opposes the

           consolidation of the 3 actions in Group 4, but specifically opposing the consolidation of the

           Goldstein action with either, or both of, the Salinari Sr. or the Sanese actions, arguing that Mr.

           Goldstein does not share the necessary Malcolm factors sufficient for a joint trial, and that Mr.

           Goldstein had a significantly higher smoking history than either Mr. Salinari Sr. or Mr. Sanese,

           and that defendant Goodyear Tire is a defendant solely in the Goldstein action. Defendant

           Goodyear Tire further argues that plaintiffs medical causation expert in the Goldstein action

           differs from the medical causation expert in the Salinari Sr. and Sanese actions. Defendant DAP,

           Inc. argues that it is only a defendant in the Goldstein case, that it was not afforded the

           opportunity to participate in discovery in the Salinari Sr. and Sanese actions, and that

           consolidation of the actions would result in the jury overlooking defendant DAP, Inc. 's general

           causation defense as to its specific product at issue only in the Goldstein action.

                   However, despite the defendants' contentions, in reviewing all the Malcolm factors, the

           Court finds that plaintiffs, Mr. Salinari Sr., Mr. Sanese, and Mr. Goldstein, were all exposed to

           asbestos through their employment and through their handling of similar materials and

           equipment such as vinyl floor tiles, joint compound, and sheet rock. Mr. Salinari, Sr. and Mr.

            190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                         Page 6 of 10
            Motion No. 002

                                                          6 of 10
[* 6]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           Sanese were additionally exposed to pumps, valves, gaskets, and insulation. Moreover, these 3

           plaintiffs have similar times of exposure in that Mr. Salinari Sr. was exposed to asbestos from

           1955 to the mid 1970's, Mr. Sanese was exposed to asbestos from 1957 to 1979, and Mr.

           Goldstein was exposed to asbestos from 1955 to 1992. Additionally, all 3 plaintiffs developed

           lung cancer from which all 3 plaintiffs are currently battling, the discovery in all of these actions

           are complete, and the 3 plaintiffs have the same counsel. Counsel for the opposing defendant

           Union Carbide Corporation represents such defendant in all 3 actions. Thus, six of the eight

           Malcolm factors have been satisfied.

                  As to Group 5, plaintiff seeks to consolidate Ober v Amchem Products, Inc.,

           190465/2018, with Burns v AO Smith Water Products Co., 190016/2019, and Sudano v AO Smith

           Water Products Co., 190175/2017. Despite the defendants' contentions, after reviewing all the

           Malcolm factors, Mr. Buckley, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Ober were all exposed to asbestos through

           their employment and through their handling of similar materials and equipment such as boilers,

           pumps, valves, gaskets, and insulation. These 3 plaintiffs also have similar times of exposure in

           that Mr. Buckley was exposed to asbestos from 1969 to 2011, Mr. Burns was exposed to

           asbestos from 1958 to 2013, and Mr. Ober was exposed to asbestos from 1974 to 1994.

           Moreover, the 3 plaintiffs developed lung cancer from which all 3 plaintiffs subsequently passed

           away, the discovery in these actions are complete, and the 3 plaintiffs have the same counsel.

           Additionally, defendants Burnham LLC, ITT LLC, and Peerless Industries, Inc. are common

           defendants. Thus, six of the eight Malcolm factors have been satisfied.

                   As to Group 6, plaintiff seeks to consolidate Mooney v Amchem Products, Inc.,

           190249/2019, with Cloonan v Aerco Int 'l, Inc., 190014/2019. Despite defendants' contentions,

           after reviewing all the Malcolm factors, the Court finds that plaintiffs, Mr. Mooney and Mr.

            190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                        Page 7 of 10
            Motion No. 002

                                                          7 of 10
[* 7]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           Cloonan were both exposed to asbestos through their employment, of which they both worked at

           the Astoria powerhouse. Both plaintiffs maintained, repaired, and inspected pipes and worked

           with other similar materials such as gaskets and insulation. Moreover, Mr. Mooney and Mr.

           Cloonan' s overlapping period of exposure spanned two decades from the 1960s to the 1980s.

           Additionally, both plaintiffs developed lung cancer from which both plaintiffs subsequently

           passed away, the discovery in both actions are complete, and the plaintiffs have the same

           counsel. Thus, at least six of the eight Malcolm factors have been satisfied.

                  There are common issues of law and fact in these 6 groups of actions. The CMO

           explicitly states that the Court may order joinder of cases based upon the Malcolm factors and

           that not all such factors must be present. Here, the Malcolm factors supportjoinder of these

           actions separated into the 6 groups detailed above. As Hon. Manuel Mendez previously held,

           "[j]udicial economy would be served by consolidating the actions of deceased plaintiffs with

           mesothelioma and whose exposure was related to their work on similar products .... In these case

           consolidations: (1) the central issue is the same; (2) it is the same Plaintiffs' counsel in the

           actions; (3) the Plaintiffs suffered from the same disease; (4) the Plaintiffs in the group are all

           deceased; and (5) the Plaintiffs were exposed .. .in a similar manner." Haley v ABB, Inc.,

           190150/19, mot. 008, dated December 11, 2019. Moreover, the CMO specifically permits the

           joint trial of three actions where, as here, three or more of the Malcolm factors have been met

           and the three plaintiffs share the same disease. Although the plaintiffs did not share common

           worksites, this does not preclude joinder of the cases for trial. Adequate safeguards can be put in

           place during the trial to avoid juror confusion and specific instructions may be given to address

           defendants' concerns. Moreover, the CMO specifies that "[a] plaintiff may drop a claim for

           punitive damages at the time of a motion for joinder in order to enable a case to be joined with

            190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                          Page 8 of 10
            Motion No. 002

                                                           8 of 10
[* 8]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           another one or two cases, if the case in question otherwise satisfies the conditions set forth

           herein." CMO, §XXV. C. Plaintiffs Affirmation in Further Support of Motion for Joint Trial,

           dated August 14, 2023, states that plaintiffs are dropping their claims for punitive damages in the

          , cases above to enable them to be eligible for joinder. Thus, plaintiffs motion seeking joint trials

           is granted.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that plaintiffs motion seeking joint trials is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that a joint trial is granted as to Servedio v AO Smith Water Products Co.,

           190144/2018 and Funicello v Amchem Products, Inc., et. al., 190247/2019; and it is further

                   ORDERED that a joint trial is granted as to Frankini v Aerco Int'!, Inc., et. al.,

          · 190165/2020 and Bomzer v A.F. Rockland Plumbing, et. al., 190019/2020; and it is further

                   ORDERED that a joint trial is granted as to McCabe v ABB, Inc., 190036/2019, Moore v

           AO Smith Water Products Co., 190054/2017, and Surace v Amchem Products, Inc.,

           190017/2014; and it is further

                 , ORDERED that a joint trial is granted as to Salinari, Sr. v Air & Liquid Systems,

           190151/2019, Sanese v AO Smith Water Products Co., 190190/2013, and Goldstein v Amchem

           Products, Inc., 190159/2020; and it is further

                   ORDERED that a joint trial is granted as to Ober v Amchem Products, Inc., 190465/2018,

           Burns v AO Smith Water Products Co., 190016/2019, and Sudano v AO Smith Water Products

           Co., 190175/2017; and it is further

                   ORDERED that a joint trial is granted as to Mooney v Amchem Products, Inc.,

            190249/2019 and Cloonan v Aerco Int'!, Inc., 190014/2019; and it is further

             190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                        Page 9 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                            9 of 10
[* 9]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 190144/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 207                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

                   ORDERED that, within thirty days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order upon

           all parties, together with notice o_f entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                   12/27/2023
                     DATE                                                        ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

            CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

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

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

             190144/2018 SERVEDIO, CHARLES vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                         Page 10 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                           10 of 10
[* 10]