Anna DiLonardo is a member of the Asbestos Litigation Practice and a former member of the firm's Board of Directors. Her practice is devoted primarily to the defense of companies in asbestos litigation, and she has appeared in both state and federal courts throughout the state of New York. She has extensive trial experience and has tried a multitude of cases on behalf of a vast array of companies over the past twenty years.
Anna has represented both large and small companies. These companies have run the gamut from manufacturers of asbestos-containing materials to small supply houses to premises owners. While Anna has extensive experience in the courtroom, negotiating a settlement is often the most economical way to resolve a dispute. She is well respected as a litigator and her skills as a negotiator are often sought to help resolve cases for clients throughout the country.
Her long tenure in the New York asbestos litigation has given her considerable insight and experience. She has served on numerous committees and acts as a liaison counsel to the court and Special Master. Her assistance is often sought to help negotiate general litigation procedures with plaintiff counsel. She was a founding member of the Medical Defense Group in New York County and continues as a member of this advisory group. In addition, she was appointed to the Case Management Committee and has been involved in the drafting of the Case Management Order for New York County. These positions, as liaison and in her service on committees, has allowed her to be at the forefront of decisions by the court and Special Master with regard to issues ranging from the amendments to the Case Management Order to setting cases for trial.
Anna has lectured and written extensively on various topics in the asbestos arena and her counsel is often sought with regard to the handling and history of the active docket in New York.
Results
After Nine-Week Trial, Unanimous Defense Verdict in Asbestos Case Where $40 Million in Damages Had Been Sought
We obtained a unanimous defense verdict after a nine-week trial in Suffolk County, New York, where the plaintiff’s counsel requested that the jury award $40 million in damages. The plaintiff was 51 years old when she was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. The plaintiff, who was 56 at the time of trial, testified that she had little or no knowledge of ever being exposed to asbestos. However, her older sister, who served as the only product identification witness at trial, testified that she recalled that their father used asbestos-containing joint compound on two occasions, approximately 50 years ago, when he repaired their home after a fire in 1970 and when he built a home in Florida around 1975. The plaintiff was five years old during the alleged exposures, and her sister was seven years older. The plaintiff’s sister testified that she had a vivid memory of her father using six different joint compounds during the two projects, including our client’s product. She also testified that the plaintiff was present hundreds of times when their father mixed, applied and sanded the joint compound. At trial, we called an industrial hygienist, a toxicologist and an epidemiologist, who testified that the type of asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound did not cause or contribute to her mesothelioma because the fibers are too short and do not cause disease. Our epidemiologist testified that the plaintiff’s mesothelioma developed spontaneously and was not the result of asbestos exposure. We also called a construction expert, who testified that the sister’s testimony regarding the amount of joint compound used and the time the sister was exposed were excessive. The jury deliberated an hour before returning the verdict. Post-trial comments from jurors indicated they did not find the sister to be credible.
Thought Leadership
Defense Digest
On the Pulse...Our Long Island, New York Office
September 1, 2021
Ten years ago, a small group of lawyers and an amazing team of support staff joined Marshall Dennehey to open the Long Island office. We had no idea what the future held, but we felt confident in the team steering the ship in the home office of Philadelphia. I feel privileged to be able to celebrate ten years at Marshall Dennehey by introducing everyone to our newest home on Long Island on Pinelawn Road in Melville, New York. Although our new location is only around the corner from our original home on Maxess Road, it feels a world away from our prior location. Our new offices are both state-of-the art and beautiful and provide a wonderful atmosphere for our talented attorneys to practice.When we opened the Long Island office a decade ago, our practice was limited to a select area in toxic torts. As the years have gone by, our team of lawyers has grown and the areas of practice handled by the office has surpassed all of our dreams when we first opened the doors for the firm. We now proudly handle all types of litigation and defense work. Our diverse group of lawyers defend nearly every type of case in the southern New York courts. We represent companies both large and small, and professionals from nearly every field of practice. We are fortunate to work on Long Island from our home base in Melville. For those who are not familiar with the area, Long Island is divided into two counties, Suffolk and Nassau. Melville is on the border of both counties and less than 40 miles from not only the courthouses on Long Island, but all of the courthouses in New York City and surrounding areas. Our central location enables us to easily handle all of clients’ needs everywhere in the geographic region. We are here in our offices on Long Island ready to welcome everyone back in person. Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
