## Facts

- Saul Didner allegedly developed a fatal asbestos-related disease from occupational exposure to products made by multiple manufacturers.
- Marlene Didner, individually and as executrix, sued 18 asbestos manufacturers, including Keene Corp. and Manville.
- The trial was bifurcated; the jury awarded about $5.8 million in damages, which the court reduced to about $3.9 million.
- Before the liability phase went to the jury, plaintiff settled with all but two defendants, including an $800,000 agreement with Manville announced in open court and to be implemented by a post-verdict consent judgment.
- The jury apportioned fault among all 18 original defendants: Manville 60.167%, Keene 15%, and the remaining defendants 24.833%.
- The trial court applied General Obligations Law (GOL) § 15-108(a) using an aggregate approach and entered judgment against Keene for 15% of the reduced award (about $618,452 plus interest).
- The intermediate appellate court concluded the Manville agreement was not a statutory “release or covenant not to sue” because it did not expressly state a release, and therefore would not trigger § 15-108(a) as to Manville.

## Issues

1. Whether an in-court settlement to be implemented by a consent judgment constitutes a “release or covenant not to sue” under GOL § 15-108(a) even without explicit release language.
2. How to calculate the § 15-108(a) reduction when there are multiple settling tortfeasors: by applying the “whichever is greatest” comparison separately to each settlement (case-by-case) or by comparing totals for all settling defendants (aggregate).

## Decision

- The court held the Manville agreement was a settlement covered by GOL § 15-108(a), despite the lack of explicit “release” wording.
- The court adopted the aggregate method for multiple settlements under § 15-108(a).
- Under the aggregate method, the verdict is reduced by the greater of (a) the total settlement consideration paid by all settling tortfeasors or (b) the total equitable share of damages attributable to all settling tortfeasors.
- The court affirmed the judgment requiring Keene to pay its 15% share of the reduced damages award (plus interest).

## Legal Principles

- For GOL § 15-108(a), a binding settlement that effectively ends the plaintiff’s claim against a tortfeasor qualifies as a “release or covenant not to sue,” even if not labeled as such.
- In cases with multiple settling tortfeasors, § 15-108(a)’s “whichever is the greatest” reduction is computed on an aggregate basis by comparing combined settlement payments against combined equitable shares of settling tortfeasors.
- The aggregate method prevents reductions that exceed the verdict and avoids eliminating a nonsettling defendant’s equitable share solely because the plaintiff entered multiple settlements.
- Apportionment of fault to settling tortfeasors remains relevant to determine their combined equitable share for the aggregate comparison.

## Conclusion

The court treated the Manville in-court settlement as a statutory settlement under GOL § 15-108(a) and held that, where multiple defendants settle, the verdict reduction is calculated by comparing aggregate settlement payments to aggregate equitable shares of the settling tortfeasors, leaving the nonsettling defendant responsible for its apportioned share.


In re New York City Asbestos Litigation (Didner v. Keene Corp.), 82 N.Y.2d 342, 624 N.E.2d 979, 604 N.Y.S.2d 884 (1993)