Cabasug v. Crane Co.
956 F. Supp. 2d 1178
D. Haw.2013Background
- Cabasug worked at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 1973–2006 in various shipyard roles and was exposed to asbestos, later diagnosed with mesothelioma.
- Plaintiffs allege negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, loss of consortium, and punitive damages against twenty-five Defendants for asbestos-containing products sold to the Navy.
- Plaintiffs moved to apply Hawaii substantive law; the court denied and held admiralty law applies.
- The court analyzes whether admiralty jurisdiction applies under the location and connection tests established in Grubart and Sisson, considering Myhran’s four-factor test.
- The court overrules Myhran as controlling for this case and applies the Sisson/Grubart framework to determine jurisdiction.
- Under the location test, exposure aboard Navy vessels in navigable waters satisfies the locality requirement; Cabasug worked on vessels in drydock.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Hawaii law or admiralty law apply? | Cabasug argues Hawaii law governs. | Defendants contend admiralty law applies. | Admiralty law applies; Hawaii law denied. |
| Is Myhran still controlling after Grubart/Sisson? | Myhran governs admiralty analysis. | Grubart/Sisson framework controls; Myhran displaced. | Myhran effectively overruled; Sisson/Grubart framework governs. |
| Does the location test satisfy navigable waters? | Exposure occurred in a shipyard context not on navigable waters. | Exposure on vessels in drydock constitutes navigable waters. | Location test satisfied; exposure aboard vessels in navigable waters. |
| Does the connection test show a substantial relationship to maritime activity? | Asbestos manufacturing for ships has no maritime nexus. | Manufacture of shipboard parts bears substantial relationship to maritime activity. | Yes; the general activity of manufacturing products for vessels shows substantial maritime relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (Supreme Court 1995) (rejected four-factor test; endorses Sisson/Grubart framework for location and connection tests)
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (Supreme Court 1972) (location and connection tests framework origins)
- Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1982) (requires significant relationship to traditional maritime activity)
- Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court 1990) (two-factor inquiry for connection test: disruption and maritime relationship)
- Myhran v. Johns-Manville Corp., 741 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1984) (four-factor connection test; later rejected by Grubart)
- In re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC, 570 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2009) (application of Grubart framework to jet-sports incident; admiralty applies)
- Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 2d 455 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (MDL asbestos context applying Grubart/Sisson framework)
- Scarborough v. Clemco Indus., 391 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2004) (illustrates defining the incident at intermediate level of generality)
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 133 S. Ct. 735 (Supreme Court 2013) (vessel definition not binding on admiralty applicability to shipyard workers)