HONEYWELL V. GUILDER, ET AL.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2009 » HONEYWELL V. GUILDER, ET AL.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 08-1747

Case Date: 12/23/2009

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009
Opinion filed December 23, 2009. ________________ No. 3D08-1747 Lower Tribunal No. 07-36683 ________________

Honeywell International, Inc., etc.,
Appellant, vs.

Stephen Guilder, et al.,
Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard Yale Feder, Judge. White & Case and Raoul G. Cantero, III; Adorno & Yoss, Jack R. Reiter, Anthony Upshaw, and Jordan S. Kosches, for appellant. The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., James L. Ferraro and David A. Jagolinzer, for appellees. Before GERSTEN, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ. ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION PER CURIAM. On motion for clarification, we withdraw our slip opinion dated October 28, 2009, and substitute the following amended opinion:

Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell") appeals an adverse final judgment awarding Stephen Guilder ("Guilder") and his children damages in the amount of $24,170,000.00, for injuries sustained from asbestos exposure. We reverse. In the 1970's and 1980's, Guilder was exposed to chrysotile asbestos when he: remodeled an attic, worked as a road construction worker, and repaired automobiles. More than twenty years later, Guilder developed peritoneal

mesothelioma, an extremely rare type of cancer that originates in the lining of the abdominal cavity called the peritoneum. Guilder sued Honeywell, as the successor manufacturer of Bendix brake pads, Honda, BorgWarner, and several other defendants that settled before trial, for injuries sustained from asbestos exposure. Guilder sought to link his disease to his brief exposures to asbestos. Shortly before trial, Honeywell filed various motions in limine. One motion sought to exclude or redact a Bendix employee's letter to an asbestos supplier written in the late 1960's on grounds of relevance. The trial judge denied this motion. The case then proceeded to trial. After Honeywell rested, Guilder moved for directed verdict on Honeywell's claim that the verdict form should include various third parties, such as Honda and

2

BorgWarner, as Fabre1 defendants. The trial judge granted the motion and did not include the Fabre defendants on the verdict form. The jury awarded Guilder over $24 million in damages, which included $10.4 million for Guilder's children for loss of parental consortium. After trial, Honeywell moved for a new trial, or in the alternative for judgment in accordance with the prior motion for directed verdict and/or motion for remittitur. Honeywell also moved to alter or amend the judgment and for collateral source setoff. The trial judge denied all post-trial motions. Honeywell appealed. On appeal, among others errors, Honeywell asserts the trial court erred in: (1) admitting the irrelevant, highly prejudicial letter; (2) excluding Fabre defendants from the verdict form; and (3) awarding Guilder's children loss of parental consortium. Honeywell further asserts that it is entitled to a setoff

reflecting the appropriate percentage of economic damages received from Guilder's settlement with co-defendants. On the other hand, Guilder contends that: (1) the letter was relevant, and not unduly prejudicial, or inflammatory; (2) the Fabre defendants were properly excluded from the verdict form; and (3) the loss of parental consortium award was

1

Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). 3

proper. Guilder further contends that Honeywell is not entitled to setoff from any portion of the verdict. We agree with Honeywell. Turning to the first issue, relevant evidence is "evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." See

Download HONEYWELL V. GUILDER, ET AL..pdf