The appeal entitled Reynolds v. Amchem Prods., Inc. received a lot of attention in the legal community and on this Weblog.  Today, the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to hear the issue in the case (see decision entries here).  In Reynolds,
the plaintiff commenced an action against defendants Garlock and
Niagara, claiming that her husband contracted an incurable disease
through exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured by the
defendants, among others.  Prior to the trial, the plaintiff and Niagara entered into a high-low agreement, capping
Niagara’s exposure at $185,000.  Neither Garlock, nor the jury had
knowledge of the agreement.  The trial court was apprised of the
agreement.

The jury returned a verdict apportioning 60% liability against
Garlock and 40% against Niagara, awarding the plaintiff damages of
$3.75 million (reduced down to $2.7 million).   The Appellate Division, Fourth Department
would not set aside the jury verdict based on the Garlock’s lack of
knowledge of the agreement, concluding that, absent collusion, the
failure to disclose the agreement did not mandate reversal.

New York Civil Law was fortunate enough to have the parties post their views of the case in this prior  post.   Perhaps the parties will be gracious enough to submit their motion papers and briefs to New York Civil Law, so that we can all gain the benefit of the issue in its entirety.

Ironically, the appeal contains another, in my opinion, novel issue — i.e.,  the trial court admitting in evidence a videotape depicting asbestos dust production caused by gasket abrasion.

Thank you to my colleague Susan for the head’s up on this case.