In October 2020, Corey G. Griffin was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma. He alleged asbestos exposure from the use of talcum powder related to his employment from the late 1950s until the 2000s. During this time, the plaintiff worked as an artist, makeup specialist, designer, and stylist in New York City and abroad. He brought this action against numerous cosmetic defendants in 2021, prompting extensive litigation.
In 2024, defendant American International Industries moved for partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. According to the CPLR, “A court must grant summary judgment if the movant establishes its claim ‘as a matter of law’ and no ‘issue of fact’ warranting trial remains.” CPLR 3212(b). The initial burden rests on the moving party to show “entitled to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact.” Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985).
In its pleadings, American International relied upon the testimony of its corporate witness and claimed its products never contained asbestos. Further, the defendant proffered scientific studies that found no increased risk of mesothelioma against workers exposed to talc products at work. As such, the defendant argued that less frequent exposure to a better-quality, pharmaceutical-grade talc, as the plaintiff had through his employment, must pose less risk. Accordingly, plaintiff’s exposure even under worst case assumptions could not be connected to talc usage.
In response, the plaintiff countered that the defendant did not meet its initial burden as it failed to submit expert evidence that its talc was asbestos-free and instead relied on the testimony of a corporate witness. Likewise, the plaintiff challenged the defendant’s conclusion in its “worst-case assumption” theory, thus proving that issues of material fact remained.
The court agreed with the plaintiff and recognized this case as a “classic battle of the experts” through the parties’ use of “competing causation evidence.” Tippin v. 3M Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 34351(U), at 6 (Sup. Ct. NY. County). The court stated it is the role of the jury, not that of the court, to examine issues of credibility in expert evidence. Here, the defendant failed “to unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed…to plaintiff’s injury” and could not prevail on summary judgment. Tippin, 2024 NY Slip Op 34251(U) at 6.
Turning to the issue of punitive damages, the defendant argued it did not possess the heightened state of mind required for punitive damages because it had no reason to believe its talc was contaminated by asbestos until the 2000s, when talcum powder litigation began. On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the defendant knew or should have known of the risks of asbestos and that it was possible it contaminated its talc products.
Here, the court sided with the defendant and found the plaintiff’s arguments “[did] not pass muster and do not reflect the law.” Tippin at 7. The court found the defendant attempted to promote worker safety through an internal safety program. Further, it promoted consumer safety by adhering to relevant laws and regulations by purchasing talc certified to be free of asbestos. The fact such asbestos was certified as asbestos free was sufficient to shift the burden onto the plaintiff to establish a material issue of fact as to punitive damages. The court stated, “By plaintiff’s logic, defendant would have been better off by not having any internal controls, by not conducting due diligence, by flouting federal law, and by note requiring its supplies to preemptively test talc for asbestos.” Id. at 8. This logic would thus incentivize defendants to turn a blind eye to safety and the law. “The law is settled that ‘[t]he purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant for wanton and reckless, malicious acts and thereby to discourage the defendant and other people [and] companies from acting in a similar way in the future.” Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 154 AD3d 139, 156, (1st Dept. 2017). Thus, the court found the plaintiff’s arguments insufficient. Furthermore, the defendant’s actions did not rise to the level of maliciousness to warrant punitive damages. Subsequently, the court granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgement on the issue of punitive damages.
Read the full decision here.