In this case, the plaintiff Gaspar Hernandez-Vega alleges that he developed mesothelioma as a result of his alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products while working as a pipefitter. At his deposition, Hernandez-Vega testified interchangeably to work with “Edward valves,” “Vogt valves,” and “Edward-Vogt valves” that exposed him to asbestos through his changing of the packing and gaskets applied to those valves. The defendant Flowserve is the successor in interest for Edward Valves, Inc., the Vogt Valve Company, and Edward-Vogt (created following a merger of the two companies).
Flowserve moved for summary judgment, arguing that the identification of Edward-Vogt was a misidentification, because Edward-Vogt valves did not come into existence until 1998. Flowserve also submitted the affidavit of David Osbourne, who worked for the company for 43 years in various engineering, sales, and marketing positions. Osbourne stated that prior to 1998 there was no valve manufactured, labeled, or branded “Edward-Vogt.” As such, Flowserve argued that the plaintiff could not have worked with any Edward Vogt valves during his career as a pipefitter in the 1960s and 1970s because they did not yet exist.
The court denied summary judgment, pointing out that Flowserve had failed to meet its initial burden by proffering no evidentiary proof demonstrating that its valves were not at the plaintiff’s worksites. Instead, Flowserve pointed to gaps in an opponent’s evidence, which is “insufficient to demonstrate a movant’s entitlement to summary judgment.” Moreover, even if Flowserve had met its burden, issues of fact existed for trial because a reasonable inference could be drawn from plaintiff’s testimony concerning his encounters with “Edward valves,” “Vogt valves,” and “Edward-Vogt valves” that the plaintiff separately encountered “Edward valves” and “Vogt valves.” The Court explained that for it to discount plaintiff’s separate invocation of his encounters with “Edward valves,” “Vogt valves,” and “Edward-Vogt valves,” and conclude that he must have been referring solely to “Edward-Vogt valves” that did not come into existence until 1998, it would have to improperly weigh the quality of the testimony and disregard portions of it “as being unworthy of belief.” The court concluded that “it is for the jury, not the court, to weigh plaintiffs credibility and resolve inconsistencies in his testimony.”