New York Mesothelioma Verdicts and Settlements

New York’s mesothelioma case volume drives one of the most active asbestos litigation landscapes in the country. The convergence of shipyard, construction, and WTC exposure across the five boroughs means a steady pipeline of cases, and the New York City Asbestos Litigation court (NYCAL) at 71 Thomas Street has consistently produced verdicts and settlements that reflect the severity of the disease.

Verified New York Mesothelioma Verdicts

The $117 Million Durbec WTC Verdict

In May 2025, a NYCAL jury awarded $117 million to William Durbec, a construction worker exposed to asbestos during work on the original World Trade Center in the 1970s, and his wife Victoria. The verdict broke out as $78 million for Mr. Durbec’s pain and suffering and $39 million for Ms. Durbec’s loss of consortium. Mr. Durbec, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2022, was employed during the WTC build by contractor Mario & DiBono Plastering Co., which remained as the sole defendant at trial. The jury found the contractor acted recklessly by failing to exercise reasonable care to protect workers.

The case is in post-trial briefing under the stipulated schedule, with no appeal, reduction, vacatur, or payment reported as of the most recent docket activity. We covered this case in detail in our reporting on the record-setting $117 million WTC verdict. Nationally, the verdict ranks alongside the $1.56 billion talc mesothelioma verdict against Johnson and Johnson and Indiana’s $83 million clay maker verdict as one of the largest asbestos-related awards in recent years.

The Robaey Take-Home Verdict and Two Rounds of Reduction

In January 2017, a NYCAL jury awarded $75 million in Robaey v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (Index No. 190276/13) to Marlena Robaey and her husband Edward. Ms. Robaey, diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in November 2012, alleged take-home exposure from her husband’s automotive gasket and brake work, plus laundering his asbestos-dust-covered clothes. The jury found Dana Companies and Fel-Pro liable and the conduct reckless.

In late 2018, NYCAL Justice Joan Madden rejected the defendants’ causation challenges but reduced the award on excessiveness grounds to $17.25 million ($16 million for Ms. Robaey and $1.25 million for Mr. Robaey).

On November 5, 2020, the Appellate Division, First Department (In re New York City Asbestos Litig. (Robaey), 2020 NY Slip Op 06301) affirmed liability, finding that visible dust from gaskets containing 50% to 85% asbestos was sufficient to establish causation. The court further vacated $12 million in past pain and suffering and $1 million in past loss of consortium as still excessive, ordering a new trial unless plaintiffs stipulated within 30 days to $5.5 million past pain and suffering and $650,000 past loss of consortium. Future awards of $4 million pain and suffering and $250,000 loss of consortium against the Federal-Mogul Trust were affirmed. If plaintiffs stipulated, the post-stipulation total comes to roughly $10.4 million.

The case is a key reminder that headline verdicts in New York are often adjusted at the post-trial stage, and final recoveries can differ significantly from initial awards.

The Brooklyn Navy Yard Consolidated Proceeding

Approximately 600 Brooklyn Navy Yard asbestos cases were jointly consolidated under Judge Jack B. Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York and Justice Helen E. Freedman in Manhattan Supreme Court, with Kenneth R. Feinberg serving as settlement master. About 79 cases were tried in three phases. Phase I covered 64 cases with 90% or higher Navy Yard exposure, producing 52 plaintiff verdicts and 12 defense verdicts; Phases II and III tried 15 cases, producing 12 plaintiff verdicts and 3 defense verdicts.

Phase I damages exceeded $30 million; Phases II and III added more than $7 million. No punitive damages were awarded, and verdicts were molded under N.Y. CPLR §§ 1601, 1602, 411, and 50-B. Defendants included Owens-Illinois, Keene Corp., and the Manville Trust. The proceeding remains one of the largest coordinated shipyard asbestos efforts in New York history.

The 2004 Mayer and Pride Verdict

In August 2004, a New York State Supreme Court jury in Matter of New York Asbestos Litig. (Mayer and Pride v. John Crane) returned a $22 million verdict in a consolidated trial of two Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs. Bernard Mayer, an apprentice electrician at the Yard from 1943 to 1945, received $7 million. Margaret Marshall, as administratrix of the estate of Noah Pride, a Navy and Merchant Marine seaman, received $15 million. The defendant was John Crane Inc., supplier of asbestos gaskets and packing.

On November 5, 2004, Justice Paula J. Omansky denied John Crane’s post-trial motions. The verdict was affirmed in Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 2006 NY Slip Op 02644.

The Olson Talc Verdict, Reversed on Appeal

Donna Olson v. Brenntag North America was a May 2019 NYCAL jury verdict of $325 million ($25 million compensatory, $300 million punitive) against Johnson & Johnson based on Olson’s mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos in J&J talc products. Trial-court remittitur reduced the award to roughly $120 million.

On July 19, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the verdict (Olson v. Brenntag North Am., 2020-04856 et seq.) on causation grounds, ruling that the plaintiff’s experts lacked scientific minimum-exposure data sufficient to prove asbestos exposure levels from J&J talc capable of causing mesothelioma. The reversal absolved J&J of liability on this case, and no further appellate disturbance has been reported. The case is sometimes mis-tagged as a California verdict in aggregator lists; it was litigated in New York County Supreme Court.

Construction and Building Trades

New York City’s construction-related cases are particularly strong because of the volume and density of pre-1980 buildings across the five boroughs. A single steamfitter or insulator who worked on building projects across Manhattan over a 20-year career might have been exposed to asbestos from dozens of manufacturers at hundreds of job sites.

This multi-product, multi-defendant profile allows plaintiffs to file against many responsible parties simultaneously. Combined with trust fund claims from bankrupt manufacturers, total recoveries can substantially exceed individual lawsuit settlements.

9/11-Related Cases

People with mesothelioma linked to 9/11 exposure have multiple compensation pathways. The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund covers mesothelioma as a certified WTC-related cancer for first responders, residents, students, and area workers who meet WTC Health Program certification and presence criteria. Awards for certified WTC-related conditions are not subject to federal, state, or local income tax, and the WTC Health Program’s minimum latency for mesothelioma is 11 years from the qualifying exposure event.

Lawsuits against responsible parties and trust fund claims can be pursued in parallel. The 9/11 mesothelioma crisis continues to unfold, with new diagnoses expected through 2060 as the latency period plays out.

Compensation Pathways

NYCAL is housed in the New York County Supreme Court, Civil Term, at 71 Thomas Street, Room 304, and centralizes asbestos personal-injury and wrongful-death cases arising in New York, Queens, Kings, Bronx, and Richmond Counties. The original Case Management Order was adopted on March 25, 1988, and has been amended multiple times. The CMO governs accelerated docket practice for people with mesothelioma.

Filing Deadlines

New York’s asbestos statute of limitations is governed by N.Y. CPLR § 214-c: three years from the date the plaintiff discovered the injury, or from the date a reasonably diligent person should have discovered it, whichever is earlier. This is the asbestos-specific discovery rule for latent toxic injury, distinct from the three-year default in CPLR § 214(5).

Wrongful death actions must be filed within two years of the date of death under N.Y. CPLR § 214(2) and EPTL § 5-4.1; this deadline is not affected by the § 214-c discovery rule.

The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund has its own registration and filing deadlines that operate independently from the court system. Because New York cases often involve tracing decades-old exposure across multiple job sites and manufacturers, investigation should begin as early as possible after diagnosis to preserve evidence and identify all responsible parties. For families navigating a new diagnosis, the 2026 treatment landscape covers the full range of current medical options that are often pursued in parallel with legal action.