Maffei v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litigation), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 1425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)
Valuing asbestos cases can sometimes be complicated but on March 13th, 2025, the NY Appellate Court gave a little clarity on what it is willing to overturn after a verdict in New York, in the Maffei v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litigation), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 1425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025) decision.
The Court unanimously affirmed the 2024 ruling of trial Judge Rosado for Plaintiffs Romeo Maffei and Rosa Maffei1 finding that, among other things, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and did not need to be reduced as excessive.
Mr. Maffei was 66 years old at the time of the verdict. He claimed that his lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure and a jury agreed entering a $38 million verdict against Burnham LLC ("Burnham"). In September 2024. The verdict included $6.6 million for past pain and suffering, $19.9 million for future pain and suffering, $6.5 million in punitive damages, and an additional $2 million for past loss of consortium, and $3 million for future loss of consortium. The Court affirmed that the verdict amounts did not deviate from what would legally be considered reasonable compensation.
The Court also noted that Judge Rosado did not abuse her discretion in precluding Burnham from eliciting testimony from plaintiffs' thoracic surgeon of alleged asbestos exposure from other tortfeasors. In determining this, the Court held that Burnham failed to demonstrate specific causation against any other potential tortfeasors.2
Also of note, this decision cited to a similar decision by the Appellate Court in the 2024 McWilliams case3, in which Plaintiff, James McWilliams, was awarded $13 million and $10 million in past and future pain and suffering, respectively. Citing the same case, the court in Maffei found the testimony of Plaintiff's experts were found sufficient to establish specific causation under the applicable standard.
It appears that the reasonableness analysis was unaffected by the fact that the Plaintiff in the Maffei case had an extensive smoking history, smoking until his lung cancer diagnosis. The jury apportioned 15% of the fault to Maffei, and 85% to Burnham, which the Appellate Court found was not against the weight of the evidence.4 This NY Appellate Court decision will likely prove valuable in future analysis of asbestos case proofs and damages awards.
Footnotes
1. Maffei v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litigation), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 1425 (1st Dept 2025).
2. Citing Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Idell), 164 AD3d 1128, 1129 (1st Dept 2018)].
3. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (McWilliams), 224 A.D.3d 597, 597-598 (1st Dept 2024).
4. See generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]). It was entirely within the jury's province to assess the credibility of the parties and their witnesses and to determine what to credit in rendering its verdict.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
