New York Mesothelioma Claim to Include Punitive Damages

When a mesothelioma lawsuit seeks both compensatory damages and punitive damages, the plaintiff is asserting that the defendant’s actions went beyond negligence to the point of being malicious or egregious and that they demand separate, additional punishment. That is exactly what the family of the late Michael F. Brady is seeking and was granted by a New York judge.

Oil Burner Serviceman’s Mesothelioma Death Blamed on Boiler Company Negligence

The claim filed by Mr. Brady’s family accused boiler maker Burnham LLC, among others, of having exposed him to asbestos and leading to his death from malignant mesothelioma. They point to parts contained within the company’s equipment that shed deadly fibers that he inhaled, and the company’s failure to take action to protect him, or even to warn of the dangers.

In response to the mesothelioma lawsuit including a claim for punitive damages, Burnham filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the punitive damages were not warranted and should not be offered to a jury for consideration. Their defense revolved around levels of acceptable asbestos exposure established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act: They relied upon testimony offered by Dr. William Longo to back up their argument.

Judge Denies Request to Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim in Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York denied Burnham LLC’s petition to have the punitive damages portion of the mesothelioma lawsuit dismissed. He agreed with the family’s argument that Dr. Longo’s testimony about the levels of asbestos released by Burnham boilers was not based on studies of a Burnham boiler, and therefore offered no certainty about the amount of exposure that Mr. Brady would have suffered.

Beyond that conclusion, the judge also considered the fact that Burnham did not take steps to place a warning on its boilers about asbestos or the risks that it posed until 1982, well after it became aware of the dangers of its products. The case will move on for a jury to determine whether their lack of care for those exposed to their products warrants additional punishment.