Bier v. Am. Biltrite
2012 Ohio 1195
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Bier, as executrix of Feruccio Bier, sued multiple manufacturers and Union Carbide for mesothelioma-related damages from decedent’s asbestos exposure.
- Union Carbide supplied Calidria asbestos used in various flooring products; Bier alleged decedent was exposed to these products over a career in flooring and tile installation and ownership of a flooring business.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Union Carbide, ruling no evidence showed decedent was exposed to Calidria-containing products.
- Bier argued circumstantial inferences from sales records and employee testimony supported exposure to Union Carbide’s Calidria.
- Ohio Court of Appeals reviews de novo summary-judgment standard and whether genuine issues of material fact exist; no deference to trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that Bier’s decedent was exposed to Union Carbide’s Calidria | Bier argues inferences from supplier to manufacturers to decedent’s use raise exposure possibility | Union Carbide contends no evidence ties Calidria to any product actually used by decedent | No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (1995) (summarizes Civ.R.56 standard for asbestos cases)
- Hollins v. Shaffer, 182 Ohio App.3d 282 (2009) (appellate review of summary judgment in Ohio)
- Parras v. Standard Oil Co., 160 Ohio St. 315 (1953) (summary judgment inference limitations)
- Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. J.D. Equip., Inc., 2012-Ohio-229 (12th Dist. 2012) (no permissible stacking of inferences in summary judgment)