Honeywell vs. Guilder, et al., 2009 WL 3446406 (Fla. App. 3 Dist.) (Oct. 28, 2009). 

A Florida appellate court recently reversed a $24,170,000 verdict for a plaintiff who sought to recover from Honeywell International, Inc. for injuries allegedly sustained from asbestos exposure. The verdict was easily the largest ever rendered in such a case in Florida, and it was in the top five largest asbestos verdicts ever in the United States. To view the appellate court’s decision, click on Download PDF.

Plaintiff, Stephen Guilder, had developed peritoneal mesothelioma, a cancer that developed in the lining of his abdomen. Guilder claimed that he was exposed to various asbestos-containing products over the course of a period during which he worked on cars, labored as a construction worker, and remodeled an attic. Honeywell, which was the successor manufacturer of Bendix brake pads, was the lone remaining defendant at trial.

Honeywell raised the following four issues on appeal: (1) a Bendix company letter should have been excluded at trial because it was irrelevant and highly prejudicial; (2) other non-parties should have been included on the jury form; (3) the trial court erred in allowing a loss of consortium award in favor of Guilder’s children; and (4) Honeywell was entitled to a set-off of other settlements before the court entered final judgment.

The subject letter, which was written and sent by a Bendix employee to an asbestos supplier in the late 1960s, stated in relevant part:

“My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while working with  asbestos products why not die from it. There’s got to be some cause[,]”

The appellate court found the letter relevant to show Honeywell’s knowledge of the dangers of asbestos at the time. But it held that the letter was highly prejudicial and that the trial judge therefore committed reversible error by failing to redact the above-noted portion of the letter at trial.
 
Next, the appellate court found that pursuant to what is commonly known in Florida as the Fabre rule, Honeywell should have been allowed to have non-parties listed on the verdict form in order for the jury to properly apportion damages in the case. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Fabre vs. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 1993), that “the legislature intended that damages be apportioned among all participants to the accident” and that “the only means of determining a party’s percentage of fault is to compare that party’s percentage to all of the other entities who contributed to the accident, regardless of whether they have been or could have been joined as defendants” The court determined that Honeywell had effectively pleaded the fault of non-parties as affirmative defenses and presented sufficient evidence of at least two non-parties.

Third, of the more than $24 million in damages rendered by the jury, $10.4 million included damages to Guilder’s children for the loss of parental consortium. The appellate court interpreted the relevant statute on parental consortium as applying only to acts of negligence occurring on or after the law’s effective date. As Fla. Stat. Section 768.0415 (2006) did not become effective until October 1, 1988 and plaintiff’s last known exposure to asbestos was in 1982, the loss of consortium damage award did not apply in the case.

Finally, the appellate court found that Honeywell was entitled to a set-off from the other settlements made in the case. Guilder had settled with other defendants in the case prior to trial for $2,820,000. The court cited Wells vs. Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 659 So. 2d 249, 254 (Fla. 1995), in which the Supreme Court of Florida held that, “settlement proceeds should be divided between economic and noneconomic damages in the same proportion as the jury’s award.” Thus, the trial judge erred in failing to setoff the prior settlement proceeds before entering final judgment. The appellate court reversed the final judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial.

For further information, please contact Craig T. Liljestrand or your regular Hinshaw attorney.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.