Widercrantz v. American Biltrite, New York Justice Upholds $10 Million Past Pain Award in $25 Million Asbestos Verdict

A New York justice has upheld a $10 million jury award for past pain and suffering in Widercrantz v. American Biltrite Inc., Index No. 190118/2024, an asbestos case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. Mealey’s reported the ruling on October 5, 2026, citing a notice of ruling the plaintiffs entered on October 2, 2026. According to the report, the justice found the exposure evidence sufficient to support the verdict and found the $10 million past-pain figure consistent with more recent New York asbestos verdicts, even though it is higher than some older ones.

The jury’s total verdict was $25 million: $10 million for past pain and suffering, $10 million for future pain and suffering and $5 million in punitive damages, in a case alleging mesothelioma from exposure to American Biltrite’s Amtico asbestos-containing floor tiles. This is an individual lawsuit, not a settlement or class action. It creates no claim form, deadline or fund for anyone else.

Widercrantz v. American Biltrite Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case	Widercrantz v. American Biltrite Inc. (captioned Widercrantz v. Amchem Products, Inc. et al. in earlier rulings)
Index number	190118/2024
Court	Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
Trial judge	Justice Judy J. Kim (per plaintiff’s counsel)
Type of case	Individual asbestos personal-injury lawsuit
Disease	Mesothelioma
Defendant at trial	American Biltrite Inc.
Product	Amtico-brand asbestos-containing floor tiles
Jury verdict	$25 million (reported by plaintiff’s counsel on April 29, 2026; verdict reached in mid-April)
Past pain and suffering	$10 million
Future pain and suffering	$10 million
Punitive damages	$5 million
Plaintiff’s counsel	Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
October 2026 development	$10 million past-pain award upheld (Mealey’s, October 5, 2026)
Class action, claim form or settlement fund	None

What Did Jon Widercrantz Allege Against American Biltrite?

Jon Widercrantz, diagnosed with mesothelioma, sued over asbestos exposure from various defendants’ products. As to American Biltrite, the court’s December 2, 2025 decision records his claim that he was exposed, personally and as a bystander, while working as a laborer with Amtico floor tiles in 1974–1977 and in the mid to late 1980s. The work included demolition and removal, and installation involving cutting, snapping and sanding, along with sweeping up the dust. He testified that some tiles had “asbestos” written on the bottom, and American Biltrite affirmed that some of its tiles made between 1961 and 1985 contained asbestos.

According to plaintiff’s counsel, the jury found American Biltrite negligent in failing to warn and found its tiles defectively designed, and found that exposure from installing and removing the tiles was a substantial contributing factor in causing the mesothelioma. These are the plaintiff’s account of the verdict, and the defense disputed causation throughout.

How Did the Court Rule on American Biltrite’s Causation Challenge Before Trial?

American Biltrite moved for summary judgment, arguing through its experts that any asbestos dose from Amtico tiles would have been indistinguishable from ambient air levels. On December 2, 2025, Justice Eric Schumacher denied the motion as to the claims against American Biltrite, finding genuine factual disputes on both general causation (whether floor-tile work can release enough asbestos to cause the disease) and specific causation (whether this plaintiff’s exposure was enough).

The court relied on the plaintiff’s expert evidence, including simulation studies of cutting, snapping, sanding and cleaning floor tiles, and cited the First Department’s approach in Sason v. Dykes Lumber Co. It also noted that American Biltrite’s own experts’ meta-analysis had excluded studies of aggressive work practices that found higher exposures. The court did, however, grant the part of the motion dismissing cross claims against American Biltrite. A denial of summary judgment is not a finding that the plaintiff proved causation. That was for the jury.

Why Was the $10 Million Past Pain and Suffering Award Challenged?

After a verdict, a defendant can ask the court to reduce a damages award as excessive. In New York, CPLR 5501(c) sets the standard: a court may change a personal-injury award if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation. Courts typically compare the award with those in reasonably similar cases, looking at things like the severity and duration of the suffering and the medical evidence.

According to the Mealey’s report, the justice rejected the challenge to the $10 million past-pain award and found it consistent with recent New York asbestos verdicts. The report also describes a finding that the exposure evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Other parts of the post-trial rulings, including the future pain and punitive awards, were not covered in the sources reviewed for this article, so check the order itself. An appeal is also still possible, so the final result could change.

Does Widercrantz v. American Biltrite Mean Every Mesothelioma Case Is Worth $25 Million?

No. The damages in an asbestos case depend on the plaintiff’s own exposure history, medical course, treatment, suffering and the evidence at trial. The $25 million figure also includes $5 million in punitive damages, which serve a different purpose than compensation. A verdict in one case does not set a value for another, and many asbestos cases settle instead of going to trial. New York courts have reduced large pain-and-suffering awards in other cases, which is why post-trial and appellate review matters.

Can Other People Claim Money From the Widercrantz v. American Biltrite Verdict?

No. There is no class, settlement fund, claim form or claim deadline. The verdict relates only to the plaintiff in this case. Someone with an asbestos-related illness who believes a particular product exposed them would have to look at their own work history, the products involved and the evidence, and talk to a licensed attorney about deadlines and options. For background on how injury and wrongful death claims work, see What Is A Wrongful Death Lawsuit? What You Must Know Before Filing.

Widercrantz v. American Biltrite Timeline

Date	Event
1961 – 1985	Period during which American Biltrite acknowledges some of its floor tiles contained asbestos
2024	Widercrantz filed (Index No. 190118/2024)
November 5, 2025	Oral argument on American Biltrite’s summary judgment motion
December 2, 2025	Justice Schumacher denies summary judgment on the claims against American Biltrite
Mid-April 2026	Jury verdict reached, per plaintiff’s counsel
April 29, 2026	Plaintiff’s counsel announces the $25 million verdict
October 2, 2026	Plaintiffs enter notice of ruling (per reports)
October 5, 2026	Mealey’s reports the $10 million past-pain award upheld

Widercrantz v. American Biltrite FAQ

What is Widercrantz v. American Biltrite?

An individual asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court, Index No. 190118/2024, alleging exposure to asbestos in Amtico floor tiles.

How much did the jury award in Widercrantz v. American Biltrite?

$25 million: $10 million for past pain and suffering, $10 million for future pain and suffering and $5 million in punitive damages.

Did the court uphold the $10 million past pain award?

Yes, according to Mealey’s, which reported the ruling on October 5, 2026.

Who was the defendant in Widercrantz v. American Biltrite?

American Biltrite Inc. was the defendant at trial. The case was also brought against other defendants, such as Amchem Products, Inc., under its earlier caption.

What product was involved?

Amtico-brand floor tiles that the plaintiff alleged contained asbestos.

Is Widercrantz v. American Biltrite a class action or settlement?

No. It is an individual lawsuit that went to a jury verdict.

Can I file a claim for part of the $25 million?

No. There is no claim process.

Does the verdict mean American Biltrite must pay the full $25 million?

Not necessarily. Post-trial motions and appeals can change a verdict, and the sources reviewed here address only the $10 million past-pain award.

For general information only; not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. A verdict in one case does not guarantee a result in another.

Sources: (1) New York State Unified Court System, Widercrantz v. Amchem Products, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 51913(U), Index No. 190118/2024 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Dec. 2, 2025). (2) Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., “$25 Million Trial Win for W&L Client with Cancer From Asbestos” (April 29, 2026), the plaintiff’s law firm. (3) Mealey’s, “New York Justice Upholds $10M Past Pain Award, Asbestos Verdict” (October 5, 2026). (4) N.Y. CPLR 5501(c).

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. Case name, index number, parties, court and the December 2, 2025 ruling verified against the New York State Unified Court System decision; the verdict amounts and trial judge come from the plaintiff’s counsel’s announcement; the post-trial ruling is as reported by Mealey’s, as of October 6, 2026. Last Updated: October 6, 2026.