Lack of Evidence of Asbestos Replacement Parts Supplied by Crane for Use in Crane Valves Key to Granting of Summary Judgment

Posted by

The decedent died of mesothelioma; prior to his passing he filed a lawsuit in state court alleging exposure to asbestos while a production shift supervisor during his employment at a paper mill in Georgia. One defendant removed, and the action was transferred to MDL 875. Defendant Crane Co. filed for summary judgment, which was granted in part by the MDL court; however, it remanded to the Northern District of Georgia to determine whether the bare metal defense was available under Georgia law. Crane then moved for summary judgment on the basis of this defense, which was granted. The plaintiff appealed and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Co-worker testimony established that some of the industrial valves at the mill were made by Crane, but no specific types of Crane valves were identified. All the valves required the removal and replacement of gaskets and packing. Testimony established the decedent’s close proximity while gaskets were replaced, but not packing. No employee testified that the replacement gaskets and packing were made by Crane, but instead were supplied by third-party vendors. There was no evidence that the worn gaskets and packing were original to Crane valves.

Under Georgia law, an asbestos plaintiff must present evidence of exposure to asbestos-containing products for which the defendant was responsible. Here, a reasonable jury could conclude that the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing dust from gaskets being replaced and used with Crane valves. However, there was no evidence that these replacement parts were supplied by Crane. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to show that decedent’s injuries were caused by asbestos parts supplied by Crane.

The plaintiffs argued that Crane was still liable because it negligently designed its valves to require the use of asbestos parts, and Crane failed to warn of the dangers of asbestos. Both of these arguments failed because the plaintiffs did not produce evidence of causation. The plaintiffs’ injury must be the proximate result of a defect in the product which existed at the time sold. Here, the record does not show the type of Crane valve the decedent was exposed to, what the valve was used for, or whether the design of that valve specified the use of asbestos to function properly. Further, Crane’s corporate representative testified that Crane valves did not require asbestos parts to properly function. “The mere fact that the gaskets on Crane Co. valves were replaced with asbestos-containing gaskets from third party vendors does not mean that Crane Co. designed and specified the use of only asbestos-containing gaskets for those valves, or that those valves required asbestos-containing gaskets to function … Without evidence demonstrating that Thurmon was exposed to a negligently designed Crane Co. valve (i.e. a valve that required asbestos-containing gaskets to function properly), a jury would be forced to speculate that Crane Co.’s negligence proximately caused Thurmon’s injuries. However, “[s]peculation does not create a genuine issue of fact.’” Further, a successful failure-to-warn claim likewise requires causation, which plaintiff failed to establish.

Read the full decision here.