Page 15 - 2014_0430_TOPVERDICTS

2013

TOP VERDICTS NY

NUMBER FIVE
the estate’s counsel could not prove that Peraica was exposed to asbestos that was contained
in a product that had been manufactured or supplied by Crane.
Defense counsel also contended that Peraica would have disregarded any warning

PRODUCTS LIABILITY
that addressed asbestos’s associated dangers. They claimed that Peraica received years of
Asbestos — Failure to Warn — Industrial Machinery
instruction that addressed those dangers, but that he continued to service products that
contained asbestos. They further claimed that Peraica neglected to wear masks that could
Insulation’s asbestos caused mesothelioma, have prevented his inhalation of asbestos’s fibers. They also claimed that Peraica worked
in facilities whose operators did not implement mandatory measures that controlled the
proliferation of asbestos’s residual dust.
suit alleged

INJURIES/DAMAGES On Aug. 26, 2011, Peraica learned that he was suffering
mesothelioma. The disease impaired his respiration, and its effects could not be
reversed. It ultimately claimed Peraica’s life. The estate’s counsel presented a doctor AMOUNT
$35,000,000
who studies occupational medicine, Jacqueline Moline. The doctor opined that Peraica’s
mesothelioma substantially stemmed from his exposure to asbestos that was contained ACTUAL
$5,250,000
in the components of boilers that were manufactured by Crane. However, she noted the
defense’s contention that Peraica worked in facilities whose operators did not implement TYPE Verdict-Plaintiff
mandatory measures that controlled the proliferation of asbestos’s residual dust, and she Peraica v. A.O. Smith Water Products, Co.
CASE
opined that Peraica’s mesothelioma could have been prevented by the implementation of VENUE New York County Supreme Court
those measures.
JUDGE
Martin Shulman
Peraica, 64, died Dec. 28, 2012. He was survived by his wife and three daughters.
Peraica’s estate sought recovery of damages for Peraica’s pain and suffering.
DATE
March 1, 2013

RESULT The jury found that Crane failed to provide adequate warnings that disclosed TRIAL
asbestos’s dangers, that the failure stemmed from a lack of reasonable care and that the LENGTH
8 weeks

company recklessly disregarded Peraica’s safety. Crane was assigned 15 percent of the
liability for Peraica’s mesothelioma. The remaining liability was divided among several TRIAL
defendants that had been released from the suit.
DELIBERATION
1 day
The jury determined that the estate’s damages totaled $35 million, all for Peraica’s pain
and suffering. Crane must pay $5.25 million, which represents its share of the liability. JURY
The estate’s counsel noted that the jury found that Crane recklessly disregarded Peraica’s COMPOSITION
3 Male / 3 Female
safety, and they contended that that finding imposes vicarious liability for all defendants

who did not negotiate settlements. They estimated that Crane will be required to pay 55 POST TRIAL
Defense counsel has moved to set aside the verdict.
percent of the assessed damages.
INJURY
EDITOR’S COMMENT This report is based on information that was provided by plain- TYPE(S)
death, cancer, mesothelioma, pulmonary/respiratory
tiff’s counsel and Crane’s counsel. The remaining defendants’ counsel was not asked
to contribute.
PLAINTIFF
ATTORNEY(S)
Adam R. Cooper, Jerry Kristal & Danny R. Kraft Jr.;

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.; New York, NY
NUMBER SIX

PLAINTIFF
EXPERT(S)
David Rosner Ph.D.; Public Health; New York, NY PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Elaine Panitz M.D.; Occupational Medicine; Sheffield, MA
Jacqueline Moline M.D.; Occupational Medicine; New York, NY
Asbestos — Failure to Warn — Industrial Machinery

Motorist didn’t yield to police vehicle,
DEFENDANT(S)
Crane Co. & A.O Smith Water Products Co.
plaintiff claimed
DEFENDANT
EXPERT(S)
Robert Strode Industrial Hygiene; Wheat Ridge, CO

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS On Aug. 26, 2011, plaintiff’s decedent Ivo John Peraica, 63, AMOUNT
$31,000,000
learned that he was suffering mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that
often stems from exposure to asbestos. Peraica claimed that the disease was a result of his Verdict-Plaintiff
TYPE
inhalation of fibers of asbestos that was a component of insulation that he handled during CASE Andino v. Mills
his career. He contended that he serviced boilers, chillers, pumps, turbines and valves that VENUE Bronx County Supreme Court
contained such insulation. Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactured some of the JUDGE
Lizbeth Gonzalez
boilers that Peraica serviced.
Peraica sued Crane and many other companies that were alleged to have distributed and/ DATE
March 22, 2013
or manufactured products that required insulation that contained asbestos. He alleged
that the defendants failed to provide warnings that disclosed the dangers that could have TRIAL

stemmed from exposure to their products’ asbestos.
LENGTH
3 weeks
Peraica died after the suit had been filed. The suit was continued by his estate.
Several defendants were dismissed; the estate’s counsel discontinued the claims against TRIAL
others; and other defendants negotiated settlements. The matter ultimately proceeded to DELIBERATION
2 Hours
a trial against Crane.
During a deposition, Peraica claimed that he serviced many boilers that were manufactured JURY VOTE
5-1
by Crane. The estate’s counsel claimed that the boilers’ components included gaskets,

insulation and packing that frequently contained asbestos. They contended that Crane JURY
advised that asbestos would reduce the dissipation and loss of heat that the boilers generated. COMPOSITION
3 Male / 3 Female
They claimed that the company’s executives and managers knew that asbestos could not be
safely inhaled, and they contended that the company’s boilers should have displayed warnings
that disclosed the dangers that could have stemmed from exposure to asbestos.
Defense counsel contended that insulation was not provided with Crane’s boilers. They
also contended that insulation was not a necessary component of the boilers. They claimed

that the boilers’ users independently added insulation, and they contended that Crane did -Continued on p16
not advocate the use of insulation or any product that contained asbestos. They argued that