Alberes v. Anco Insulations, Inc.
156 So. 3d 795
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Edward A. Alberes (plaintiff) alleges he contracted asbestosis from work-related asbestos exposure at multiple sites, including a five-day turnaround job at B.F. Goodrich’s Plaquemine facility where he removed and installed asbestos-containing Garlock gaskets and cleaned insulation without respiratory protection.
- Plaintiff testified he observed asbestos fibers released during gasket removal and worked near insulators; he was not provided respiratory protection or warned by Goodrich supervisors.
- Plaintiff offered expert testimony: industrial hygienist Frank Parker opined those tasks produced exposures above occupational/background levels and were a significant contributing risk; treating experts testified any asbestos exposure is additive and contributes to asbestosis.
- Goodrich moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff’s five-day exposure during a long career was not a "substantial contributing factor" and thus insufficient to prove causation; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- On appeal, the court considered whether a genuine issue of material fact existed about whether Goodrich exposure was a substantial contributing cause of plaintiff’s asbestosis and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exposure at Goodrich was a "substantial contributing factor" to asbestosis | Alberes: his tasks at Goodrich released visible asbestos fibers; expert testimony says exposure levels were significant and cumulative exposures are causative | Goodrich: the exposure was only a five-day turnaround amid a long career; too brief/minimal to be a substantial factor | Reversed: whether exposure was substantial is a factual issue for the trier of fact; summary judgment improper |
| Proper focus for "frequent and regular" requirement | Alberes: quality and intensity of exposure during employment matter, not mere duration | Goodrich: emphasizes duration and relative percentage of career spent at Goodrich | Court: rejects duration-only approach; quality/intensity can make short exposures substantial |
| Burden on summary judgment in asbestos cases | Alberes: offered testimony creating genuine factual dispute on causation | Goodrich: argued plaintiffs cannot meet causation standard as a matter of law | Court: any doubt resolved for non-movant; summary judgment inappropriate where reasonable minds could differ |
| Relevance of cumulative-exposure testimony | Alberes: expert opined all exposures are additive and relevant | Goodrich: argues such testimony would render substantial-factor test meaningless | Court: cumulative-exposure opinions create factual issues; defendant must rebut with evidence to obtain summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corp., 976 So.2d 859 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (standard of review and summary judgment principles in asbestos cases)
- Lucas v. Hopeman Bros., 60 So.3d 690 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2011) (material-fact definition and causation in asbestos claims)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (short-duration exposures can still be a substantial factor)
- Quick v. Murphy Oil Co., 643 So.2d 1291 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1994) (asbestos claims analyzed under traditional tort causation and concurrent causation doctrines)
- In re Asbestos Litig. (Bordelon), 726 So.2d 926 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (plaintiff must show significant exposure that was a substantial factor)
- Hoerner v. Anco Insulations, 812 So.2d 45 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2002) (quality of exposure, not merely length, controls "frequent and regular" analysis)
- Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 755 So.2d 226 (La. 2000) (trial court cannot resolve credibility on summary judgment)
- Willis v. Medders, 775 So.2d 1049 (La. 2000) (summary-judgment standard; inferences for non-movant)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058 (La. 1992) (causation principles in toxic-exposure/product-litigation)
- Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 484 So.2d 110 (La. 1986) (asbestos causation precedent)
- Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir. 1983) (asbestos exposure and causation analysis)
- 210 E. 86th St. Corp. v. Combustion Eng., 821 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y.) (discussion of concurrent causation in multi-defendant asbestos cases)