Langhorne v. Amchem Products, Inc.

Launch Research AI

Related Statutes and Codes

Related Cases

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Newport News Circuit Court Asbestos Cases
United States Fire Insurance Company and the North River Insurance Company, in No. 98-1854 v. Asbestospray, Inc. Spraycraft, Inc. Asbestos Products Manufacturing Corporation H&a Construction Co., Inc. Grover C. Adams Joseph H. Albert George Ament Harvey J. Beecoft Herbert Oberry Best Eugene Borofsky Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Amchem Products, Inc. American Home Products Corporation Anchor Packing Co. A.P. Green Industries, Inc. Armstrong World Industries Containteed Corp. Dana Corporation Fibreboard Corporation Keene Corp. National Gypsum Company Stich, Angell, Kreidler, Brownson & Ballou, P.A. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer v. Envision Claims Management Corporation John Doe 1-10, Individually Jane Doe 1-10, Individually Xyz Corp., 1-10, Bodies Corporate, Third-Party Stich, Angell, Kriedler, Brownson & Ballou, P.A., in No. 98-1153 the Estate of Frederick Whitaker and Weitz and Luxenberg, P.C., in No. 98-1154
prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 13,625 Linda P. Horne, of the Estate of Benny Gerald Horne, and Benny Gerald Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and Ac & S, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania Corporation Amchem Products, Incorporated the Celotex Corporation, Individually and as Successor Manufacturing Company, Philip Carey Corporation, Panacon Corporation, Glen Alden Corporation, Rapid American Corporation, Briggs Manufacturing Company, and Smith and Kanzler, a Delaware Corporation C.E. Thurston & Sons, a Virginia Corporation Combustion Engineering, Incorporated Crown Cork & Seal Company, Incorporated, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Mundet Cork Corporation, a New York Corporation Eagle-Picher Industries, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation Flintkote Company, a Massachusetts Corporation Fireboard Corporation, Pabco Industrial Products Division, a Delawarecorporation Gaf Corporation, a Delaware Corporation W.R. Grace & Company, a Connecticut Corporation A.P. Greene Refractories Company Keene Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Keene Building Products Corporation, Keene Insulation Products Corporation, Ehret-Magnesia Manufacturing Company, Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Incorporated, Baldwin-Hill Company, and Mundet Cork Corporation, a New York Corporation National Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation Owens-Illinois, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (Unarco), a Pennsylvania Corporation H.K. Porter Company, Incorporated, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Southern Asbestos, Carolina Asbestos, Thermoid and Tullman-Mccluskey, a Delaware Corporation Raymark Industries, Incorporated, Successor in Interest to Raybestos-Manhattan, Incorporated Rock Wool Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, an Alabama Corporation Turner & Newall, P.L.C., Individually and as Alter Ego of Keasby & Mattison United States Gypsum Company, Inc. Armstrong World Industries, Incorporated, Formerly Known as Armstrong Cork Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation, General Refractories/grefco, Incorporated, U.S. Refractories Division, and Third Party v. Manville Corporation Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund, Third Party
In Re Asbestos Litigation
In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2004, which dismissed the complaint and all cross claims as against defendant Robert A. Keasbey Co., and order, same court and Justice, entered *209October 5, 2004, which dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against defendants Amchem Products, Inc., Dana Corp. and Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Co., Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for personal injuries and wrongful death arising from mesothelioma caused by asbestos fiber inhalation, the motion court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground the claims were barred by the releases signed by plaintiffs decedent in connection with the settlement of a prior federal action alleging asbestosis. These documents released defendants-respondents from “any and all claims” that plaintiffs decedent “may ever have” or “which may arise” from his alleged asbestos exposure, and the releases provided that the settlement was in “complete satisfaction” of all existing and future asbestos-related claims. Such language was “plain and unambiguous” (Touloumis v Chalem, 156 AD2d 230, 232 [1989]) and “embrace [d] all possible matters arising between the parties” in connection with the underlying subject (Mosberg v National Prop. Analyst, 217 AD2d 482, 484 [1995]). In these circumstances, absent evidence of “duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake” in connection with the scope of the releases (Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 563 [1969]), plaintiffs claims were barred. Here, plaintiff failed to meet his requisite burden. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.