Courtroom, Gavel And Law Books

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Regulator Manufacturer Denied

Posted by

Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (NYCAL)

Plaintiff John B. Daly, Jr. worked as a mechanic for Consolidated Edison Company from 1976 to 2012. He alleged exposure to asbestos-containing gaskets affiliated with regulators manufactured by Fisher Controls International LLC during this period.

Fisher filed a motion for partial summary judgment, denying liability as they did not manufacture, sell, supply or otherwise recommend the use of asbestos-containing gaskets. In support of their motion, Fisher cited the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in In re New York City Asbestos Litigation (Dummitt), 27 NY3d 765, 799 (N.Y. 2016). In opposition, the plaintiff relied on his testimony regarding Fisher’s regulators, in addition to documents demonstrating Fisher’s “involvement with asbestos-containing gaskets.”

According to the court, although the summary judgment standard for an asbestos action is typically found in Dyer v. Anchem Products Inc., 207 AD3d 408, 409 (1st Dep’t 2022), Fisher correctly identified the standard for liability for third-party products as set forth in Dummitt. The court found that the plaintiff’s testimony plainly identified Fisher regulators as a source of his exposure to asbestos. In addition, the plaintiff adduced evidence establishing that Fisher recommended the use of asbestos-containing gaskets in connection with their regulators. Given this evidence, a question of fact remains as to whether Fisher “substantially participated in integrating or recommending such gaskets” with their product.

Therefore, the court denied Fisher’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Read the full decision here.