In Holzworth v. Alfa Laval, et al. 12-CV-06088 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016), Southern District of New York Judge John Keenan granted defendant Ingersoll-Rand’s summary judgment motion arising out of the plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos aboard the U.S.S. Sheldrake. The plaintiff’s decedent had testified that he was exposed to pumps aboard the ship as a bystander and by cleaning them. He did not specifically describe their pumps’ composition, but claimed that he scraped asbestos-containing packing from the jackets. He further testified that many of the pumps had been refurbished, with components being replaced.
Ingersoll-Rand moved for summary judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that the motion was unopposed, the court analyzed whether any questions of fact existed with respect to the plaintiff’s product liability claims.
The court first determined that no conflict of law existed between Maritime and New York law and then found that summary judgment was appropriate with respect to the plaintiff’s negligence, strict liability, warranty, and warnings claims.
Turning first to the negligence, strict liability, and warranty claims, the court analyzed the plaintiff’s complaint and interrogatory answers, but did not identify any specific allegations with respect to claims against Ingersoll-Rand. Next, the court found that the plaintiff did not identify any evidence of exposure to asbestos from a product “produced by Ingersoll.” Id., at p. 9. It was insufficient to merely show that the plaintiff was present aboard the ship that contained the defendant’s pumps “that were wrapped in asbestos.” Id., quoting various cases. As a consequence, the court dismissed the warranty, negligence and design claims.
Turning to whether a duty to warn existed, the Court, citing New York law, evaluated whether the defendant “had any active role, interest , or influence in the types of products to be used in connection with its own product after it placed its product into the stream of commerce.” Id., citing In re N.Y.C. Asbes. Litig., 121 A.D.3d 230 (2014).
Here, the court found that there was no duty to warn of a third-party’s component parts where: “The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to suggest that Ingersoll had any role, interest, or influence whatsoever in the products that the Navy used in connection with its pumps, much less that Ingersoll actively participated in, knew of, or manufactured products that necessitated the use of third-party asbestos-containing products. The Decedent’s deposition testimony and interrogatory responses state only that Ingersoll manufactured cast-iron pumps. This evidence, standing alone, does not raise a genuine dispute as to whether Ingersoll placed the asbestos-containing components into the stream of commerce played an active role in their use, or manufactured pumps that required such components.”
In other words, since there was no evidence showing that “Ingersoll knew of or otherwise influenced the Navy’s use of asbestos-containing materials produced by third parties, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact relating to Ingersoll’s lack of a duty to warn” of the dangers of third-party products.