Burns v. Bechtel Corp.
212 Md. App. 237
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Burns sued Bechtel for mesothelioma linkage to asbestos exposure at PEPCO sites; Bechtel moved for summary judgment under CJ § 5-108 repose.
- Bechtel contracted for design, supervision, and construction at Dickerson, Chalk Point, Morgantown plants with absolute control over projects.
- Asbestos insulation was used at all sites and Bechtel supervised subcontractors and inspections.
- In 2009 Burns’ husband diagnosed with mesothelioma; the action was filed November 5, 2009.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in Bechtel’s favor on November 15, 2011; appeal followed in 2012.
- Bechtel argued repose barred claims; the appellate court reviews de novo on questions of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bechtel was in actual possession and control for repose exclusion | Bechtel had complete/absolute control over the project | Control was limited to project scope, not possession of premises | No possession under § 5-108(d)(2)(i); repose not excluded |
| Whether asbestos materials fall within ‘improvements’ under § 5-108(a) | Asbestos materials are not improvements under the statute | The exception (§ 5-108(d)(2)(ii)) shows improvements include such materials | Bechtel shielded by repose; improvements interpretation not controlling under exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Toy v. Atlantic Gulf & Pac. Co., 176 Md. 197 (Md. 1939) (premises possession required for abnormally dangerous activity doctrine)
- Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351 (Md. 1994) (legislative history and repose interpretation for asbestos-related claims)
- Hilliard & Bartko Joint Venture v. Fedco Sys., Inc., 309 Md. 147 (Md. 1987) (accrual rule under § 5-108(e) and discovery rule application)
- First United Methodist Church v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 882 F.2d 862 (4th Cir.) (discusses applicability of discovery rule under Maryland context)