Michael C. Wagner v. Aerco International, Inc. et al.

Case Background

On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff Michael C Wagner and Karen Wagnerfiled a Product Liability lawsuit (asbestos lawsuit) in the New York Supreme Court (Case number: 190169/2021). Judge Lyle E. Frank presided over the case.

Cause

Plaintiff Michael Wagner, a mechanic, alleged exposure to asbestos from products made, sold, and/or distributed by various entities throughout his life. Following the defendants’ petitions for summary judgment, some cases were dismissed, and others settled out of court. Ultimately, North American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (Nissan) remained as the sole defendant in the case.

Injuries

Michael C. Wagner suffered from mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer typically caused by asbestos exposure. The disease caused him immense physical pain, mental anguish, emotional trauma, and anxiety. His ability to participate in life activities, enjoy family life, engage in employment, and fulfill civic duties significantly impaired. Furthermore, his life expectancy shortened due to the severity of the illness.

Damages

As a consequence of the mesothelioma diagnosis, the Plaintiff incurred extensive medical expenses for treatments, including surgery, drugs, and hospitalization. His earning capacity severely diminished due to his deteriorating health. The physical and emotional toll further led to a loss of enjoyment of life. The Plaintiff’s spouse,Karen Wagner, also claimed damages for loss of consortium, companionship, and support resulting from her husband’s illness. Both Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages to cover medical costs, lost income, and emotional distress, alongside punitive damages against the Defendants for their reckless and malicious conduct.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

 Claims

The plaintiffs, Michael C. Wagner and Karen Wagner, asserted multiple causes of action in a asbestos lawsuit against the defendants based on their asbestos-related injuries.

Product Liability Claims

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, and supplied asbestos-containing products that were unreasonably dangerous and defective. The defendants failed to make their products safe for their intended use and neglected to use alternative materials or designs that could have prevented asbestos exposure. The defective nature of these products directly contributed to Mr. Wagner’s development of mesothelioma.

Negligence Claims

The defendants breached their duty of care by failing to exercise reasonable caution in the design, testing, manufacture, and distribution of their asbestos-containing products. They knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos exposure but continued to produce and sell these harmful products. The defendants’ negligent conduct included:

  • Failure to properly test their products for safety
  • Inadequate quality control measures
  • Insufficient safety protocols
  • Lack of proper workplace safety guidelines
  • Inadequate monitoring of product hazards

Failure to Warn

The defendants failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers associated with their asbestos-containing products. They possessed superior knowledge about the hazards of asbestos exposure but did not:

  • Properly label their products
  • Provide sufficient safety instructions
  • Issue adequate warnings about the risks of asbestos exposure
  • Communicate known dangers to end users
  • Update warnings as new information became available

Strict Liability

The defendants were strictly liable for injuries caused by their unreasonably dangerous products, regardless of the level of care exercised in the production process. The inherently dangerous nature of asbestos-containing products made them strictly liable for resulting injuries.

Defense

NNA denied knowledge or information about most allegations in the plaintiffs’ asbestos lawsuit, except acknowledging that it was a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in New York. The company presented 32 affirmative defenses, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against them. NNA claimed that if the plaintiff sustained any injuries, these were caused by his own negligence, smoking, or the actions of other parties not related to NNA. They maintained that any NNA products did not emit harmful substances, and any potential exposure was minimal and not a contributing factor to the plaintiff’s disease.

The company also raised several procedural defenses. They argued that the statute of limitations had expired, that the claims violated the Uniform Commercial Code, and that the case should be stayed due to the bankruptcy proceedings of other parties. NNA challenged the constitutionality of punitive damages and claimed the plaintiffs failed to join necessary parties to the lawsuit. They asserted rights to contribution and indemnification from co-defendants who might settle with the plaintiffs and reserved the right to add more defenses as they became available during discovery proceedings.

Expert Testimony

For the Plaintiff:

Jerrold Abraham discussed the nature, cause, and pathology of asbestos-related diseases, linking exposure to the defendants’ products with the plaintiffs’ illnesses. Charles William identified when and where various asbestos-containing materials were used in industrial facilities, including power plants.  R. Mark Bailey addressed the health risks of asbestos exposure, highlighting issues such as direct and bystander exposure and “fiber drift,” which contributed to the plaintiffs’ exposure. Arnold Brody elaborated on the physiological impact of asbestos on the lungs and its irreversible effects.

Barry Castleman outlined state-of-the-art issues and the timeline of scientific knowledge regarding asbestos hazards. Steven P. Compton shared insights into microscopy and spectroscopy related to asbestos analysis. Christopher DePasquale examined the plaintiffs’ asbestos exposure over time and its associated risks. William (Bill) Egeland presented findings on asbestos-containing dust released from various products. Sean Fitzgerald discussed the geology of vermiculite and its link to asbestos exposure.

Douglas B. Flieder covered the nature and causes of asbestos-related diseases. Arthur Frank addressed general medical issues surrounding these diseases. Kenneth Garza assessed the plaintiffs’ exposures to asbestos and their risks. Joan Gil corroborated Dr. Abraham’s findings on disease causation related to the defendants’ products. Mark Ellis Ginsburg confirmed that the plaintiffs’ exposures significantly contributed to their diagnoses, considering exposure intensity and duration.

Ronald Gordon linked malignant mesothelioma closely to asbestos exposure, stating that the plaintiffs’ mesothelioma resulted from such exposure. Steven E. Haber highlighted the carcinogenic risks of asbestos and talc-containing fibers. Robert Lautin supported Dr. Ginsburg’s claims about the significance of the plaintiffs’ exposure to the defendants’ products. John Maddox, a pathologist, confirmed that the plaintiffs developed their diseases due to exposure to asbestos in the defendants’ products. Eugene Jerome Mark reviewed historical literature on asbestos hazards and the epidemiological relationship between asbestos products and diseases.

James Markham addressed the economic losses from the plaintiffs’ disabilities caused by the defendants’ negligence. Gerald Markowitz discussed state-of-the-art issues regarding asbestos knowledge over time. Dr. Steven Markowitz detailed the plaintiffs’ diagnoses, exposure histories, and the causal relationship with their occupational asbestos exposures. Mr. Jeff Mlekush explained analytical methods for identifying and quantifying asbestos. Dr. David Madigan covered epidemiology and statistics related to asbestos exposure. Dr. Jacqueline Moline shared industrial hygiene principles related to the plaintiffs’ exposures. Mr. Arnold P. Moore provided insights based on his experience with naval specifications and standards.

David Ozonoff reviewed state-of-the-art issues surrounding asbestos knowledge. Steven S. Paskal discussed the plaintiffs’ exposures and risks. Stephen Petty testified on industrial hygiene principles and the circumstances of the plaintiffs’ exposure. Sanford Ratner examined the nature of asbestos-related diseases and the exposure-disease relationship. David Rosner discussed the availability of scientific information concerning asbestos hazards. Edwin Neil Schachter provided insights on the plaintiffs’ diagnoses and their exposure to asbestos. David A. Schwartz supported claims regarding the plaintiffs’ diagnoses. Kenneth Spaeth reviewed the plaintiffs’ medical records and exposure histories. Jerome Spear discussed industrial hygiene principles related to the plaintiffs’ exposures. Harvey Spector testified on the nature and cause of asbestos-related diseases, reinforcing the connections established by other medical experts.

For the Defendants

Dominik D. Alexander discussed epidemiological literature on lung cancer risks among various occupations, asserting insufficient evidence linking motor vehicle repair work to increased lung cancer risk. Richard Luther Attanoos covered the medical aspects of lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma. J. Michael Berg provided insights based on scientific literature related to industrial hygiene and exposure science. Charles Blake addressed general industrial hygiene principles and asbestos exposure in brake maintenance. Michele Carbone discussed the diagnosis and causation of mesothelioma. Dr. James D. Crapo examined asbestos-related diseases and their effects in occupational settings.

Commander James P. Delaney shared his extensive U.S. Navy experience regarding steam plant equipment and procedures. Laura Fuchs Dolan, M.B.A., assessed the plaintiffs’ alleged economic losses. Ilan Allan Feingold discussed aspects of the plaintiffs’ medical conditions, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the case’s complexities.

Jury Verdict

On October 1, 2024, the jury found that Nissan failed to warn Mr. Wagner about asbestos exposure from their products and determined this failure was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma. The six-person jury unanimously concluded that Mr. Wagner was exposed to asbestos in connection with Nissan’s products and that Nissan failed to exercise reasonable care by not providing proper warnings. However, the jury determined that Nissan had not acted with reckless disregard for safety, leading them to reject punitive damages. Five out of six jurors awarded Mr. Wagner compensation for his suffering, granting him $300,000 for past pain and suffering from his diagnosis date to the present and an additional $300,000 for future pain and suffering projected over 8.4 years. The total damages awarded to Mr. Wagner amounted to $600,000 in a Asbestos lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request