Summary Judgment Upheld for Georgia Pacific Because Proof Didn’t Distinguish Between Asbestos and Non-Asbestos Product

Defendant Georgia Pacific was granted partial summary judgment, in that all claims against the defendant “pre-1973” were barred. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the court overlooked the fact that the defendant stopped distributing asbestos joint compound in September 1973.

In response to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendant argued that the court properly granted partial summary judgment relating to the plaintiff’s pre-1973 claims as the decision was based on a Stigliano analysis, which states “ when the record reveals that a defendant manufactured both asbestos-containing and non-asbestos containing versions of a product during the time period of alleged exposure, in the absence of evidence directly or circumstantially linking the plaintiff to the asbestos-containing product, the Court cannot draw the inference of exposure and summary judgment on product nexus must be granted.” Stigliano v. Westinghouse, No. CIV.A 05C-06-0263ASB, 2006 WL 3026171, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2006).

The court agreed, as in this case, similar to Stigliano, the defendant manufactured both asbestos containing and non-asbestos containing joint compound beginning in 1973, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff worked with the defendant’s asbestos containing joint compound post 1973. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied

Read the full decision here.