Barraford v. T & N Ltd.
17 F. Supp. 3d 96
D. Mass.2014Background
- Daniel Barraford worked as a senior engineer at the Prudential Center in the 1960s–1970s and was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in September 2002; he died October 23, 2002. Plaintiff Nora Barraford (widow/executrix) asserts asbestos claims against T & N Limited and TAF International Limited for products (e.g., Sprayed Limpet Asbestos) used at the site.
- Defendants were members of the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) and participated in a 1993 national settlement that tolled statutes for certain future claimants; that settlement was voided by the Third Circuit in Georgine and later decertified.
- In July 2000, CCR and the Ness Motley firm executed a brief letter extending tolling as to “claims represented by [Ness Motley]” until CCR notified termination; the Barrafords were not Ness Motley clients in 2000.
- Federal-Mogul (parent of defendants) filed Chapter 11 on October 1, 2001; defendants withdrew from the CCR on October 2, 2001. The Federal-Mogul plan confirmed December 27, 2007, created an Asbestos Trust and channeling injunctions under § 524(g).
- Plaintiff filed state-court asbestos litigation in October 2004 against other defendants but did not name T & N or TAF (both were in bankruptcy) and did not file a claim in the bankruptcy. The Trust sued T & N and TAF in November 2011 (removed to federal court).
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings (treated as summary judgment). The court held the governing limitations period is three years and concluded plaintiff’s claims are time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the bankruptcy stay (and §108(c)) preserve or extend the 3-year statute of limitations for Barraford’s asbestos claims? | The automatic stay/discharge process left plaintiff’s claim undischarged, so the stay continued and §108(c) extends limitations until the stay termination. | The bankruptcy plan confirmed Dec. 27, 2007 constituted a discharge and lifting of the automatic stay; §108(c) afforded only a 30-day window after plan effective date. | The plan confirmation discharged HPEs and lifted the stay; §108(c) gave plaintiff 30 days after Dec. 27, 2007 to file — plaintiff missed that window. |
| Did the July 2000 CCR–Ness Motley tolling letter extend the limitations period for the Barrafords? | The letter tolled the limitations period as to claims of class members/future claimants, potentially including Barraford. | The letter extended tolling only as to claims represented by Ness Motley; Ness Motley did not represent the Barrafords in 2000 and lacked authority to toll their claims. | The tolling letter did not extend the period as to the Barrafords; no valid tolling applies. |
| Did defendants’ withdrawal from the CCR preserve the tolling agreement as to defendants? | Plaintiff suggested CCR obligations might survive withdrawal and thus preserve tolling. | Defendants withdrew from CCR in Oct. 2001 and tolling obligations did not clearly survive withdrawal; the letter/agreement is ambiguous and not shown to bind defendants as to Barrafords. | The court found it doubtful the tolling agreement survived withdrawal and, in any event, it did not cover Barrafords. |
| Is equitable tolling or estoppel appropriate because bankruptcy delayed claimants and defendants knew of such delays? | Equity should toll limitations because defendants’ bankruptcy foreseeably delayed claim pursuit. | No evidence defendants misled plaintiff or prevented timely filing after plan confirmation; plaintiff had knowledge of her claim by Oct. 23, 2002. | Equitable tolling/estoppel denied; plaintiff exercised no due diligence showing she could not have filed within applicable period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgine v. Amchem Prods., 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996) (district court class-certification decision that led to invalidation of the prior settlement)
- Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (Supreme Court decision affirming limits on class settlements and certification issues)
- McKinney v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 925 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991) (plan confirmation ordinarily lifts automatic stay and discharges prepetition debts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard — requiring no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Bernier v. Upjohn Co., 144 F.3d 178 (1st Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling applies when reasonable diligence could not have discovered information essential to suit)
- Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (record viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant at summary judgment)
- In re W.R. Grace & Co., 475 B.R. 34 (D. Del. 2012) (discussion of §524(g) channeling injunctions and asbestos trust mechanisms)