In September of 2023, a New York jury ordered Burnham LLC to pay a former boiler worker and his wife $38 million in compensation for negligently exposing him to the asbestos that caused his lung cancer. In July of the following year, the same court and judge hearing the initial case refused to set aside the verdict or to reduce the damages award as excessive. Unwilling to abandon its quest, Burnham appealed the decision to New York’s Appellate Division, which dismissed the company’s appeal and left the victim’s award in place.
$38 Million Asbestos Lung Cancer Award Included Punitive Damages Against Company
After hearing testimony from the victim, his wife, and expert witnesses, the New York jury awarded Romeo Maffei $6.6 million for past pain and suffering from his lung cancer diagnosis and $19.9 million for future pain and suffering over 17.5 years. The jury also awarded Mr. Maffei’s wife, Rosa, $2 million for past loss of consortium, $3 million for future loss of consortium, and $6.5 million in punitive damages, bringing the total awarded to the couple to $38 million.
In its appeal of the judge’s decision not to either set aside the verdict and direct judgment in its favor as a matter of law, to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence or in the interest of justice, or to reduce the damages as excessive, Burnham LLC contended that the asbestos lung cancer victim’s expert witnesses did not establish specific causation under the applicable standard, that the trial court had improperly exercised its discretion in keeping Burnham from cross-examining the victim’s expert thoracic surgeon regarding asbestos from other products, and for assigning punitive damages.
Appellate Court Upholds $38 Million Asbestos Lung Cancer Verdict
In reviewing Burnham’s argument and the record of the asbestos lung cancer trial, the New York Appellate Division, First Department determined that the plaintiffs’ expert witness had provided sufficient testimony to establish causation, that the trial court had not improvidently exercised its discretion, and most importantly, that there is ample support to conclude that Burnham had acted ‘with reckless disregard and that this was a case’ involving an improper state of mind or malice or wrongdoing to the public.’”
The judges noted that the long record of Burnham having used asbestos in its products despite knowing early on about its dangers and without providing warnings of that danger. They concluded that the damages awarded to the couple did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation and were not excessive under the circumstances. They refused to disturb the awards and dismissed the case.
If you or someone you love has been harmed by asbestos, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
