U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, February 11, 2022
The decedent died of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. The decedent’s husband allegedly exposed the decedent by wearing clothing covered in asbestos fibers from his work as a laborer and welder at Avondale. The decedent’s heirs filed suit against several defendants.
Avondale asserted a Third-Party Demand against Amchem, claiming entitlement to virile share contributions depending on the outcome of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Amchem moved for summary judgment on Avondale’s claims.
While Amchem never disputed that their asbestos-containing products were present at Avondale, Amchem maintained that the plaintiffs provided nothing more than speculation that the decedent’s husband was exposed to Amchem’s products. Amchem also argued Avondale cannot prove that exposure to an Amchem product was a substantial contributing factor of the decedent’s mesothelioma.
Avondale argued there were genuine disputes of material facts that would preclude summary judgment. The decedent’s husband’s coworker testified that he cleaned up a product matching the description of Amchem’s product, and another coworker testified Amchem’s products were used on almost everything built at Avondale.
The court noted in an asbestos case a plaintiff must show (1) significant exposure to an asbestos-containing product, and (2) the exposure was a substantial cause of the injury. The court found that the plaintiffs provided specific material facts that created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the decedent’s husband was exposed to Amchem’s product. The coworker’s testimony demonstrated that the decedent’s husband worked around the Amchem products. The court noted that even though the testimony did not identify Amchem’s product by name, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of proximity to the product to withstand summary judgment.
Based on the above, the court determined that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the third-party plaintiff, showed a non-trivial exposure that more than likely was not a substantial factor of the decedent’s mesothelioma. As such, Avondale was able to show a genuine dispute of material fact that precluded summary judgment.