Plaintiffs Survive Summary Judgment as to Turbine and Valve Defendants; Fail to Establish Exposure to Other Equipment Defendant

The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff, Paul Paquin, had not established that he was exposed to any asbestos containing product for which the defendants were responsible. The court launched into its analysis with the standard for summary judgment and stated that summary judgment is not appropriate unless “the court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment.” The parties disputed whether maritime law or the Connecticut Product Liability Act applied. The court noted that both require the plaintiff to “demonstrate that the defendants manufactured or distributed a defective product, that the defect existed at the time the plaintiff utilized the product, that the plaintiff was exposed to that defective product without adequate warning or protection, and that exposure to the defective product caused his injury.”

Crane and CBS (Westinghouse): Both Crane and CBS argued that the plaintiff had no evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to either defendant’s equipment or products. However, the court disagreed and stated that a material issue of fact had been established. Here, the plaintiffs put forth an affidavit from Charles Knapp which identified products and/or equipment manufactured by both Crane and CBS. The affidavit went as far as to explain how the equipment was insulated and that each defendants’ equipment was utilized on every submarine built or repaired at Electric Boat. Additionally, the affidavit described the loose lagging that came off equipment and became airborne. Accordingly, the motions were denied.

Foster Wheeler: The court granted Foster Wheeler’s motion for summary judgment. Although the affidavit as to Foster Wheeler was similar to the others in differed in one crucial aspect. Here, the affidavit went only as far as to say that Foster Wheeler’s equipment was on many submarines at Electric Boat. It did not state that the equipment was on all. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted.

Read the full decision here.