U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Michele Salvemini, et al. vs. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.
In this asbestos action, plaintiff Michele Salvemini alleges exposure to asbestos while working as a marine engineer and shipyard mechanical worker on various merchant and U.S. Navy ships from 1974 to 2007. During this timeframe, Mr. Salvemini specifically claims asbestos exposure from performing repairs and maintenance on asbestos-containing pumps, gaskets and other related products in the engine rooms of these ships. In April 2022, Mr. Salvemini was diagnosed with progressive lung disease, which he alleges was caused by the repeated asbestos exposure. It is further alleged that Mr. Salvemini’s spouse, Luciana Dell’Accio (the decedent), had exposure from laundering asbestos-contaminated clothing that Mr. Salvemini brought home from his work. This purported secondary and/or take-home asbestos exposure had caused the decedent to develop malignant mesothelioma. In April 2020, the decedent passed away from malignant mesothelioma. In July 2022, the plaintiff initiated this personal injury and wrongful death case by filing a complaint in the District of Delaware against fifteen defendants, including Buffalo Pumps, a successor-by-merger with Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. The plaintiff alleges Buffalo Pumps (Buffalo) was a manufacturer of asbestos-containing pumps installed on the ships on which he worked. The plaintiff asserted claims based upon strict liability, negligence, a loss of consortium and wrongful death against Buffalo and all other defendants. In May 2024, Buffalo ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment after all discovery had concluded. The plaintiff opposed and the motion was fully briefed shortly thereafter.
At the outset, the court noted it was undisputed that American maritime law applies to the plaintiff’s claims against Buffalo. In that regard, Buffalo’s motion for summary judgment primarily argued that Mr. Salvemini and, by extension, the decedent, cannot establish as a matter of law that an asbestos-containing product manufactured, sold or distributed by Buffalo was a substantial factor in causing their alleged injuries. To establish causation for asbestos related injuries under maritime law, “a plaintiff [must] show, for each defendant, that (a) he was exposed to the defendant’s product, and (b) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered.”
In this action, the court found Mr. Salvemini testified that his work involved removal and replacement of asbestos-containing gaskets from Buffalo pumps without wearing protective equipment. This work created dust that Mr. Salvemini inhaled and covered his clothes, which he brought home to the decedent to launder. However, Mr. Salvemini’s testimony also showed that he worked on, “almost all the pumps on the various vessels and performed more or less the same work on so many different brands of pumps, that he can’t remember exactly what [he] did on each single brand of pump.” In addition, Mr. Salvemini testified that he was unable to state with certainty how frequently he worked on Buffalo pumps as opposed to other manufacturers’ pumps. Mr. Salvemini further testified that the replacement gaskets used were manufactured by Chesterton, Garlock, Coffin, and that he knew they contained asbestos because the word “asbestos” would be on the side of the boxes. Lastly, Mr. Salvemini estimated that he replaced 3,000 gaskets, but is unable to apportion how many of these were on Buffalo pumps, instead reiterating that his work involved “almost all the pumps.” In light of this evidence, the court found Mr. Salvemini’s testimony is insufficient to raise a fact issue under Lindstrom, as he is unable to provide any level of certainty about the “frequency, regularity, and proximity” of his exposure to Buffalo pumps, such that a reasonable juror could find it was a “substantial factor” in causing his injury. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. The plaintiff instead provided a generalized argument that Mr. Salvemini worked with so many different brands of pumps, including Buffalo and others, that his exposure to asbestos from Buffalo pumps must have been a “substantial factor” in causing his injuries. The plaintiff’s inability to differentiate the amount of time that Mr. Salvemini spent working on Buffalo pumps during his career leaves the court to speculate about the frequency, regularity and proximity of Mr. Salvemini’s exposure to asbestos from Buffalo pumps, which does not satisfy the standard of Lindstrom.
The plaintiff next attempted unsuccessfully to create an issue of fact through circumstantial evidence by citing, among other things, a portion of deposition testimony from another Buffalo witness, Terrence Kenny, in an unrelated 2004 litigation. Mr. Kenny referred to gaskets installed inside of Buffalo pumps and states that asbestos-containing gaskets, in the instances that they were used, were not used by Buffalo after January 1985. However, as Mr. Salvemini testified he did not know the maintenance history of the pumps, it is speculative to assume that asbestos-containing gaskets were still included on the Buffalo pumps on which he worked. Moreover, Mr. Salvemini worked on external flange gaskets on the pumps, not the internal components that Mr. Kenny identified. In summation, the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence did not create an issue of fact as to whether Mr. Salvemini was exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets on Buffalo pumps with such “frequency, regularity, and proximity” that such exposure was a “substantial factor” in causing his injury. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492; Damon v. Aireon Manuf. Corp., 2015 WL 9461593, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 1, 2015) (granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment even when there was evidence presented that plaintiff worked with defendant’s equipment and was exposed to dust through that work because there was no evidence that the dust or equipment contained asbestos).
In view of the above, the court ultimately recommend that Mr. Salvemini’s claims against Buffalo be dismissed and that summary judgment be granted in Buffalo’s favor as a matter of law.
Read the full decision here.