Plaintiffs Patrick and Joy Demartino brought suit against various defendants after Patrick Demartino developed mesothelioma. Defendant Aurora Pump Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not use or sell external asbestos-containing gaskets. The court denied this motion.
It was undisputed that during the plaintiff’s time of alleged exposure to Aurora pumps while working at Walker-Prismatic from 1975-1986, Aurora used and sold asbestos-containing gaskets. The plaintiff testified that his only source of asbestos exposure from Aurora pumps was from replacement of external flange gaskets. However, in support of its motion, Aurora submitted an affidavit stating that external flange gaskets never contained asbestos. The plaintiff argued this affidavit should not be considered, because affiant did not work at Aurora until one year after the plaintiff’s employment at Walker-Prismatic. The plaintiff further argued the motion should be denied because Aurora failed to provide discovery.
The court denied Aurora’s motion. Case law supported that “pointing to gaps in an opponent’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant’s entitlement to summary judgment.” To defeat summary judgment, the plaintiff’s evidence must create a “reasonable inference” that the plaintiff was exposed to a product; issues of credibility were for the jury.
Here, Aurora failed to demonstrate that its pumps could not have contributed to the causation of the plaintiff’s injury. Further, Aurora could not satisfy the summary judgment burden of proof when it is undisputed that millions of documents exist that have not been turned over.