The plaintiff sued several defendants alleging that he developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos products of the defendants while he served as a boiler tender in the U.S. Navy from 1976-79. Defendants Atwood and Morill (Atwood) and Carrier Corp. moved for summary judgment.
The court’s analysis started with the standard for summary judgment. “The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The burden falls on the moving party to establish the absence of a material fact in dispute. All parties agreed that maritime law was applicable. Under maritime law, a plaintiff must show that he was exposed to the defendant’s product and the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
As for Atwood, the plaintiff did not respond with evidence refuting Atwood’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Atwood.
As for Carrier Corp., the court quickly granted summary judgment. The court noted that Mitchell only associated asbestos with external insulation on Carrier blowers. Carrier Corp. had submitted an affidavit that it did not manufacture asbestos insulation. Further, Carrier did not require or recommend that its equipment be insulated with asbestos. Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate.