Segal McCambridge Secures Appellate Victory Dismissing Benzene Exposure Claims Against Global Paint Manufacturer

Segal McCambridge's appellate defense team, led by Shareholder Michael Sena, secured a significant victory for a global manufacturer of protective paints and coatings in a benzene exposure lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court, New York County.

The plaintiff alleged that exposure to benzene-contaminated paint products while working at an auto body shop caused the development of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), a blood disorder. The lawsuit targeted both solvent suppliers and paint manufacturers, asserting that trace amounts of benzene in paint products were responsible for the alleged illness.

Throughout the litigation, the defense successfully narrowed the claims against its client to a single paint product, substantially limiting the plaintiff's ability to connect any allegedly contaminated solvents to the product at issue. Following discovery, Segal McCambridge argued that there was no evidence the product contained benzene and that the plaintiff could not establish product identification or causation.

Although the trial court initially denied summary judgment for the paint manufacturers, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed that decision and dismissed the claims. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the component solvents in the products were contaminated with benzene or that any alleged exposure occurred at levels capable of causing disease. The court further found that the plaintiff's experts relied on unsupported assumptions rather than evidence demonstrating contamination or exposure.

After the appellate victory, the plaintiff sought reargument and alternatively requested leave to appeal to New York's highest court. Upon reconsideration, the First Department again dismissed the action in its entirety, reaffirming that the plaintiff failed to establish that the solvents contained benzene in carcinogenic amounts or that the alleged exposures could support the claims asserted.

The decision represents an important victory for manufacturers facing claims based on alleged trace contamination. It reinforces the significant evidentiary burden plaintiffs must satisfy to establish product identification, contamination and causation in benzene exposure litigation.