Florida Appeals Court Overturns $24M Verdict Against Honeywell

A Florida appeals court has reversed a $24 million award against Honeywell International entered after a Miami jury found that an amateur mechanic developed lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos in brake pads made by the company.

The trial court should have excluded from evidence prejudicial language in a letter written by an employee of Honeywell's corporate predecessor, the 3rd District Court of Appeal said.

Stephen Guilder brought the suit in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, alleging Honeywell, as the successor manufacturer of Bendix brake pads, was liable for his lung cancer.

In his complaint Guilder said he worked with Bendix brakes for years as an automotive hobbyist in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Other defendants were named in the suit, but Guilder settled with or dismissed all but Honeywell prior to trial.

When the jury returned its $24 million award in April 2008, Guilder's attorney David Jagolinzer of the Ferraro Law Firm said it was the largest-ever compensatory award in Florida in an asbestos suit.

Honeywell spokesman Rob Ferris said at that time: "There is no supportable evidence Mr. Guilder's disease was caused by exposure to [our] products. We will continue to vigorously defend our position and are confident we will ultimately prevail on appeal."

The company told the appeals court the trial court should have excluded a 1960s letter from a Bendix employee to an asbestos supplier. The company said the letter was irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

The appeals court found that the letter was relevant to proving Honeywell's knowledge of asbestos in its products. However, a portion of the letter was prejudicial and should have been redacted, the panel said.

That part stated, "[M]y best 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 trial judge erred in refusing to redact this part of the letter from evidence, the appeals court ruled.

The panel also found that Honeywell had the right to have other parties listed on the jury verdict form for the jurors to consider in apportioning damages.

The company pleaded the fault of nonparties and provided sufficient evidence that at least two were at fault, the appeals court said. Under the principle established in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 11882 (Fla. 1993), Honeywell was entitled to have those entities listed on the jury verdict form, the panel ruled.

Finally, the appeals court said, Guilder's dependent children were not entitled to receive any of the $10.4 million in damages they were awarded for loss of parental consortium.

The legislation allowing such a claim specifically limits such claims to negligent acts occurring on or after Oct. 1, 1988, the court said. However, Guilder's last known exposure to asbestos was in 1982.

The appeals court remanded for a new trial.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

The plaintiff is represented by James L. Ferraro and David A. Jagolinzer of the Ferraro Law Firm in Miami.The defendant is represented by Raoul G. Cantero III of White & Case and Jack R. Reiter, Anthony Upshaw and Jordan S. Kosches of Adorno & Yoss, both in Miami.