U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, August 5, 2021
Decedent John Dale Wineland, who developed mesothelioma and subsequently died, worked aboard Navy ships and in Navy offices between 1963 and 1984. The plaintiffs allege that the decedent was exposed to asbestos contained in Cleaver-Brooks products while aboard the USS Tuscaloosa, where he worked in the engine rooms. The plaintiffs assert that defendant Cleaver-Brooks is liable for the decedent’s illness and death under theories of negligence and strict liability.
Cleaver-Brooks filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that (a) the plaintiffs have failed to produce admissible evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the decedent’s exposure to asbestos from Cleaver-Brooks products was a substantial contributing factor in his illness and death as required by maritime or Washington law, and (b) it had no legal duty to ensure that products and replacement parts manufactured by others were reasonably safe and/or properly labeled.
The court concluded that maritime law applies to the plaintiffs’ tort claims and reviewed the standard for summary judgment. To prevail on their negligence and strict liability claims, the plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that the decedent’s injuries were caused by exposure to asbestos that was attributable to Cleaver-Brooks’ conduct. ” McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2016). To establish causation under maritime law, the plaintiffs must show that the decedent’s exposure to asbestos from Cleaver-Brooks products “was a substantial contributing factor in causing his injuries.” Id. at 1174. Evidence of only minimal exposure to asbestos dust attributable to each defendant is insufficient; the plaintiffs must provide “evidence regarding the amount of exposure to dust” attributable to Cleaver-Brooks and, “critically, the duration of such exposure.” Id. at 1176-77. The evidence must show “a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” Id. at 1176.
While there is evidence in the record that the distilling plant aboard the USS Tuscaloosa was provided by Cleaver-Brooks’ predecessor, the plaintiffs have not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the decedent suffered a substantial exposure to asbestos dust from Cleaver-Brooks products. While it is possible that the distilling plant and centrifugal pump were maintained, repaired, and/or overhauled while the decedent served aboard the USS Tuscaloosa, there is no indication that he was involved in or proximal to those activities, how frequent such activities might have been, or whether they involved the disturbance of asbestos-containing components. The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing “a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” McIndoe, 817 F.3d at 1176.
Further, the plaintiffs argued that Cleaver-Brooks should face liability for its failure to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing replacement parts supplied by third-parties because Cleaver-Brooks was aware that the asbestos components in its products would wear out and that asbestos-containing replacements were necessary for the equipment to function as designed. However, evidentiary support for this argument is also lacking. The relevant naval records show only that Cleaver-Brooks’ distilling plant was manufactured with compressed asbestos sheet gaskets to seal internal components. There is no evidence that any particular Cleaver-Brooks product was designed to work only with asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Cleaver-Brooks is liable for any asbestos-containing replacement part or ancillary product that was hypothetically manufactured by a third party and integrated into a Cleaver-Brooks product installed on the USS Tuscaloosa.
Because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation or a duty to warn under maritime law, Cleaver-Brooks’ motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment regarding Cleaver-Brooks’ affirmative defenses was denied as moot.
The plaintiffs also allege that the decedent was exposed to asbestos contained in Warren Pumps products while aboard four Navy ships, and defendant Warren Pumps also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to produce admissible evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the decedent’s exposure to asbestos from Warren Pumps products was a substantial contributing factor in his illness and death, as required by maritime law.
There is evidence in the record that the distilling plant pumps aboard three of the ships were provided by Warren Pumps, and each distilling plant included three pumps and utilized asbestos pump shaft packing and compressed asbestos sheet gaskets. Warren Pumps also provided asbestos-containing replacement parts to the Navy during the relevant time frame. Finally, there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the decedent was exposed to significant levels of asbestos dust while working in the engine rooms of all four vessels.
The plaintiffs have not, however, produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the decedent suffered a substantial exposure to asbestos dust from Warren Pumps products. There is no evidence regarding where the Warren Pumps air driven reciprocating pumps were installed on the USS Tuscaloosa, making it impossible to determine whether the decedent was exposed to asbestos from those pumps. Although the distilling plant pumps were located in the decedent’s workspace and it is entirely possible that the pumps were maintained, repaired, or overhauled while the decedent served aboard one or more of the vessels, there is no indication how frequent such activities might have been. It is the plaintiffs’ burden to provide evidence showing “a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” McIndoe, 817 F.3d at 1176. More is needed than simply placing a defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was occasionally exposed to asbestos dust from those products. Id. at 1176-77. Absent evidence regarding the amount of exposure to dust attributable to Warren Pumps and the duration of such exposure, a jury would have to speculate as to whether asbestos from Warren Pumps products was a substantial contributing factor in causing his injuries. Id. at 1174.
The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation under maritime law. For all of the foregoing reasons, Warren Pumps’ motion for summary judgment was also granted, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment regarding Warren Pumps’ affirmative defenses was denied as moot.