United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
In this action, the plaintiff alleges that her husband developed mesothelioma from his work as a pipefitter while assisting with the construction of a Schlage Lock plant in 1972. As previously reported by the Asbestos Case Tracker, defendant Schlage Lock obtained summary judgment after the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina found that there was no evidence of asbestos exposure at the Schlage Lock facility, as well as the absence of evidence showing that Schlage controlled the worksite. The plaintiff timely appealed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment to Schlage Lock.
In a per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court on both grounds. First, the Court of Appeals restated the Lohrmann standard in connection with the defendant’s lack of evidence of asbestos exposure argument. The Court highlighted Decedent’s testimony where he conceded that he did not know whether any person used asbestos in the plant. In addition, Schlage Lock’s corporate representative testified that a former employee stated that there was no asbestos in the plant, and she could not locate any documents that set forth the use of asbestos in the plant. She further testified to her belief that the North Carolina and Colorado plants were specified to be asbestos-free. Finally, two samples of insulation from areas near original piping tested negative for asbestos.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s contention that two issues of material fact existed. Specifically, the decedent’s testimony that he “believed he may have been exposed” was similar to Arbogast v. A.W. Chesterton Co., where the Arbogast Court found that “bare beliefs that [the plaintiff] personally was exposed to asbestos . . . [, even alongside evidence] [t]hat some . . . products may have had asbestos in them[,] simply is not enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact.” The court also found that the District Court properly disregarded the plaintiff’s expert report, as the District Court considered the report to be speculative in nature. Notably, the only plant-specific fact that the expert considered was the year of construction. Instead, the expert “offered an opinion based on general information about the use of asbestos in construction in the late 1960s and early 1970s without considering any facts pertaining to [Decedent] or the plant at issue.” As such, the Court of Appeals found that the expert’s “failure … to consider the actual evidence in the case is textbook speculation.”
Second, the court held that the independent-contractor exception to landowner liability under North Carolina law applied to this matter. The court found that the record contained no reasonable inferences or suggestions that Schlage Lock controlled the decedent’s work. Instead, Schlage Lock hired a contractor to complete the pipefitting work. Indeed, Decedent testified that his employer, Embree Reed, directed his work and paid his wages. Therefore, “even if [Decedent’s] injuries were caused by inhaling asbestos fibers … those injuries arose incident to his employment by Embree Reed, and Schlage Lock cannot be held liable for them.” Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision.