Morales v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 31396(U)

Background

Plaintiffs Belisario Camargo Morales and Leydi Camargo brought a suit alleging that Morales developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or distributed by Amchem Products, Inc. and others.
The case is proceeding to trial in the Supreme Court of New York County, with multiple defendants having settled or remaining for trial.
The opinion addresses a series of motions in limine filed by both parties seeking to shape permissible trial evidence and arguments.
Defendants sought to limit evidentiary matters, such as expert causation testimony, use of certain demonstrative exhibits, and references to settled or bankrupt parties.
Plaintiffs moved to bar defendants from questioning their experts on other potential causes and objected to disclosure and procedural matters surrounding trial preparations.
The ruling largely defers heavily on evidentiary issues to the trial context, stressing case-specific foundation and established New York asbestos litigation precedents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Questioning experts about non-party causes	Should be precluded; irrelevant/prejudicial	Necessary if foundation shown for specific causation by others	Denied without prejudice—foundation required at trial
Disclosure of Trial Exhibit List	No obligation to serve all defendants	Must serve all parties as per CPLR §2103(e)	Granted—must serve list to all defendants
Preclusion of defendant’s financial condition or insurance	(Plaintiff objects to preclusion)	Irrelevant, prejudicial	Granted—evidence precluded
Use of phrases like “asbestos industry/victim”	No specific counterargument stated	Ambiguous, prejudicial	Granted—precluded
Testimony on causation by plaintiff’s experts (Garza, Ginsburg)	Sufficient basis for testimony	Insufficient, request Frye hearing	Denied—testimony allowed, no Frye hearing
Admissibility of state-of-the-art and trade association evidence	Should be allowed to show industry knowledge	Irrelevant, prejudicial	Denied—evidence admissible
Admissibility of day-in-the-life and video simulations	Should be allowed	Prejudicial, not scientific quantification	Denied—may be admitted as demonstrative aids
Requests for Frye hearing re: simulation evidence	Opposes Frye hearing	Argues for Frye hearing	Denied—no Frye hearing
Inclusion of settled defendants on verdict sheet for apportionment	Only if prima facie case shown against them	All should be included	Denied—only if prima facie case at trial
Disclosure of settlement agreements beyond amount	Not required	Demands disclosure	Denied—not relevant pre-verdict
Preclusion of regulatory/public health materials & post-exposure evidence	Should be admitted for context, recklessness	Inadmissible for causation, irrelevant if post-exposure	Denied—often admissible depending on context

Key Cases Cited

In re New York City Asbestos Litig., 164 AD3d 1128 (1st Dept 2018) (foundation required before questioning about nonparty fault or adding to verdict sheet)
Butigian v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ, 293 AD2d 251 (1st Dept 2002) (financial condition and insurance evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial)
Casalini v. Alexander Wolf & Son, 157 AD3d 528 (1st Dept 2018) (issues of material fact are not appropriate for in limine motions)
Lugo v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 89 AD3d 42 (2d Dept 2011) (expert testimony on individual susceptibility is admissible)
Vigio v. New York Hosp., 264 AD2d 668 (1st Dept 1999) (use of day-in-the-life video subject to trial court discretion)
Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 121 AD3d 230 (1st Dept 2014) (experts may rely on case reports and series as basis for testimony)
In re New York County Data Entry Worker Prod. Liab. Litig., 222 AD2d 381 (1st Dept 1995) (settlement terms beyond the amount generally not relevant pre-verdict)
State v. Metz, 241 AD2d 192 (1st Dept 1998) (motions in limine aim to exclude inadmissible evidence, not broad legal theories)