2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97062
D. Md.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Charles L. Arbogast, Jr. and Barbara Arbogast) sued multiple manufacturers/distributors alleging asbestos exposure caused Arbogast’s mesothelioma; claims proceed on negligence and strict liability theories.
- The complaint was broadly pleaded; plaintiffs often identified only brands or product categories (e.g., lighting panels, motor controllers, joint compound) rather than specific model/part identifiers.
- Summary-judgment motions were filed by multiple defendants (Eaton/Cutler Hammer; Foster Wheeler; MCIC/McCormick; Georgia-Pacific; Crane; Schneider/Square D; Union Carbide; others). Court reviewed each defendant’s motion on failure-of-proof grounds under Rule 56.
- The Maryland causation test requires (inter alia) proof a specific asbestos-containing product attributable to a defendant released respirable fibers and that plaintiff encountered those fibers with sufficient frequency, regularity, and proximity to be a substantial factor in causing injury.
- Court granted summary judgment for most defendants where plaintiffs failed to identify specific products or provide admissible evidence of asbestos content or of exposure to respirable fibers; denied summary judgment for MCIC (McCormick/Kaylo lagging evidence) and Georgia-Pacific (legal question about retroactivity of strict liability).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of product identification and proof of asbestos content (Eaton/Cutler Hammer; Square D) | Arbogast worked near/with defendant-brand electrical equipment and believed those products contained asbestos. | Plaintiffs failed to identify specific product models or produce admissible evidence that those products contained asbestos or released respirable fibers. | Granted for Eaton and Square D — plaintiffs’ general brand/category assertions and belief evidence insufficient. |
| Manufacturer liability for third-party asbestos in equipment (Foster Wheeler; Crane re third-party components) | Manufacturer owes duty where its equipment used asbestos components/insulation even if third parties supplied/installed them. | No evidence boilers/valves required asbestos or that manufacturer knew asbestos was critical; no proof respirable fibers were released by enclosed components. | Granted for Foster Wheeler and Crane — plaintiffs failed to meet May factors and show necessary exposure to respirable fibers. |
| Exposure to lagging/insulation supplied by McCormick (MCIC) | Arbogast worked near McCormick laggers (Kaylo) at Mount Clare Shops; observed cutting/mixing producing dust. | Defendant did not meaningfully contest being successor; contest frequency/proximity. | Denied as to MCIC — sufficient evidence to create jury question on exposure (cutting/mixing, visits ~2x/year). |
| Retroactivity of strict liability for products sold before Phipps (Georgia-Pacific) | Plaintiffs may pursue strict liability though many products were sold before Phipps (1976); cause of action accrued on discovery (2014). | Georgia-Pacific argues unfair to apply strict liability to products sold before Maryland recognized the doctrine. | Denied (Georgia-Pacific’s motion) — court applies accrual/discovery rule; strict liability available because evolution of law was foreseeable in product-liability/asbestos context. |
| Causation linking supplier fibers (Union Carbide Calidria / Bakelite) to plaintiff’s joint-compound exposure | Union Carbide supplied asbestos fiber (Calidria/SG-210) and Bakelite molding compounds; plaintiffs claim these ended up in Georgia-Pacific Ready Mix used by Arbogast. | Incomplete, unlinked formulas; term "Bakelite" often generic; no proof specific product purchased by Arbogast contained Union Carbide asbestos; distribution/formula evidence speculative. | Granted for Union Carbide — plaintiffs’ proof fails to establish that Calidria or Union Carbide Bakelite in defendants’ products exposed Arbogast to respirable asbestos fibers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute and "scintilla" rule)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant limits)
- Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (frequency/regularity/proximity exposure test used by Fourth Circuit)
- Reiter v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 8 A.3d 725 (Maryland requirement to show regular, proximate exposure to a specific product)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Pransky, 800 A.2d 722 (need to be in or very near presence of asbestos-containing product to inhale fibers)
- Eagle-Picker v. Balbos, 604 A.2d 445 (Maryland Court of Appeals adopting frequency/regularity/proximity test)
- Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 363 A.2d 956 (adoption of strict liability principles in Maryland)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 601 A.2d 633 (applying strict liability and Comment j failure-to-warn standards in Maryland)
- May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., 129 A.3d 984 (Maryland Court of Appeals: narrow circumstances imposing duty where third-party asbestos is integral to equipment function)
- Babylon v. Scruton, 138 A.2d 375 (seller duty principles and foreseeability in Maryland negligence law)
- Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc., 497 A.2d 1143 (prospective application of new tort causes; discussed re: retroactivity)