Applying Maritime Law, Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment, Refusing to Speculate on Decedent’s Exposure to Pump Defendant’s Products While in the Navy

Posted by

Plaintiff Josephine Fuoco, as executrix of the estate of Joseph Fuoco, alleged that Mr. Fuoco contracted mesothelioma while serving in the U.S. Navy as a machinists’ mate and as a construction worker. Defendant Warren Pumps moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. Warren did not dispute that its circulating pumps were on the USS Ammen, the ship on which Mr. Fuoco served. However, no fact witness offered testimony regarding Mr. Fuoco’s alleged asbestos exposure on board this shop. Warren was added to the case after the plaintiff received documents indicating that Warren pumps were used on board the USS Ammen in connection with Westinghouse turbines. The plaintiff argued Mr. Fuoco was exposed, because her expert report from a U.S. Navy Captain detailed overhaul and maintenance procedures that should have occurred while Mr. Fuoco was on board, including work on pups, which Mr. Fuoco’s job duties encompassed. The plaintiff also argued that Warren failed to provide her with evidence from prior litigation indicating the presence of asbestos containing material used in association with Warren Pumps.

The parties did not dispute that maritime law applied. Maritime law mandates that to prove causation in an asbestos case, a plaintiff must show for each defendant that he was exposed to the defendant’s product, and that the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered. Minimal exposure is insufficient to establish causation. Courts in this circuit have also applied a third requirement: that the defendant manufactured or distributed the asbestos-containing product to which exposure is alleged. Here, no reasonable jury could find that Mr. Fuoco was exposed to asbestos from a Warren Pumps product such that it was a substantial factor in causing his injury. The plaintiff identified no asbestos-containing product from Warren Pumps. The court stated:  “The court cannot deny summary judgment by speculating that Fuoco worked on or around a Warren pump or was otherwise exposed to asbestos from a Warren pump.”

Read the full decision here.