Summary Judgment Denied for Arc Chute Manufacturer due to Plaintiff’s Continuance of Discovery

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington January 26, 2021

Plaintiff Ronald H. Behrmann alleges he was exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy and later working in the Todd and Lockheed Shipyards in Seattle, Washington. The plaintiff now has mesothelioma and brings this action against various companies, including Meriden, arguing that asbestos in their products caused it.

Defendant Meriden manufacturers are Arc chutes, which are component parts used within other equipment, so the plaintiff does not allege that Meriden sold these parts directly to Lockheed. Instead, the plaintiff asserts that other companies, including co-defendants General Electric, Square D, Cutler Hammer, and ABB, used Meriden asbestos-containing arc chutes in their products, which were then sold to Lockheed, where the plaintiff was exposed over the course of his career.

Defendant Meriden now moves for summary judgment arguing that maritime law applies and that te plaintiff cannot meet its burden either to show the defendant caused his mesothelioma or that it is liable for failure to warn. The plaintiff opposed the defendant’s motion, arguing Washington State law applies and that he has met both burdens.

The court noted that maritime law applies when the tort at issue meets both (1) the locality test and (2) the connection test. The locality test “in the case of an asbestos- related disease arising from work on or around ships . . . is satisfied as long as some portion of the asbestos exposure occurred on a vessel on navigable waters.” The locality test in the case of an asbestos-related disease arising from work on or around ships is satisfied as long as some portion of the asbestos exposure occurred on a vessel on navigable waters. The court found that maritime law applies here as the fats satisfy both the locality and connection tests.  In order to survive summary judgment under maritime law, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time. Furthermore, the plaintiffs may not survive summary judgment by simply presenting general evidence that the defendant’s products possibly exposed them to asbestos, The court found that the plaintiff did not meet their burden as the plaintiff only provided general evidence that he may possibly have been exposed to asbestos from the defendant’s arch chutes and no evidence regarding the amount or duration of such exposure.

However, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), a court may defer considering a motion “if a non-movant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition . . . .” The plaintiff in this case asserts that the outstanding information will include a complete list of Meriden’s customers and the models of arc chutes sold to customers that supplied Lockheed, the models of arc chutes used in electrical equipment supplied to Lockheed by those customers, and more information from coworkers and corporate representatives about arc chutes at Lockheed. Plaintiff’s declaration, filed more than a month before the February 22, 2021 motions deadline, includes “specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery.”

Consequently, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice.