In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation (Didner v. Keene Corp.)

Marlene Didner (plaintiff) sued 18 asbestos manufacturers (collectively, manufacturers) (defendants), including Keene Corporation and the Manville Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund (Manville), for causing her husband’s death. Damages were tried first. The jury issued an approximately $5.8 million verdict, which the court reduced to approximately $3.9 million. Before the court submitted liability to the jury, Didner settled with all but two of the manufacturers, leaving only Keene and another manufacturer as litigants. Manville, which agreed to pay $800,000 to Didner, was one of the settling defendants. Pursuant to General Obligations Law (GOL) § 15-108(a), the court instructed the jury to assess the respective responsibilities of the original 18 defendant-manufacturers so that the court could offset the jury award to reflect settlements and the manufacturers’ apportioned culpabilities. The jury determined that Manville was 60.167 percent culpable, Keene was 15 percent responsive, and the other manufacturers were 24.833 percent responsible. Judgment against Keene in the amount of $618,452 (15 percent of the reduced jury award, plus interest) was filed. Keene objected, arguing that the GOL required reducing the jury award for each settling defendant on a case-by-case basis. Under Keene’s proposal, the amount to be offset for each manufacturer other than Manville would have been the manufacturer’s settlement amount (which exceeded each manufacturer’s apportioned share). This offset would have totaled $2.5 million. For Manville, (whose apportioned share was more than its $800,000 settlement amount), the offset amount would have been approximately $2.357 million. Taken together, Keene’s proposed offsets of approximately $4.85 million fully absorbed the approximately $3.9 million reduced damages award, which would have left Keene with no payment obligation. The trial court disagreed, ruling that the GOL offsets should be applied on an aggregate basis, meaning that the settling manufacturers should be viewed collectively and their settlement and apportioned-share amounts totaled, with the larger total offset against the reduced jury award. The appellate division affirmed. Keene appealed.