Carter v. Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, 439 Md. 333

Four consolidated Baltimore City asbestos cases—Carter, James, Lawrence, Hewitt—went to trial against Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (WGAST); use plaintiffs were named to recover damages but did not formally join as party plaintiffs.
Hewitt case involved apportioning damages between asbestos exposure and smoking; expert proposed percentage-based apportionment, which trial court rejected.
Use plaintiffs participated in discovery, depositions, testimony, and were listed on verdict sheets, but their status as formal party plaintiffs was contested.
Maryland wrongful death rules (Rule 15-1001) and timing of statutes of limitations were pivotal for whether use plaintiffs could recover; Court of Special Appeals held they were barred for lack of formal joinder.
Md. Rule 15-1001 evolved, culminating in 2012 amendments; this opinion concludes use plaintiffs were real parties in interest and not barred under law applicable at trial, and that apportionment is only appropriate where the injury is divisible.
The Court reverses the Court of Special Appeals: (1) limits on apportionment, finding Hewitt’s death an indivisible injury; (2) holds use plaintiffs were not precluded by statute of limitations and remands for proper disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether damages can be apportioned when multiple causes exist	Hewitt—synergistic effect of smoking and asbestos makes injury divisible	Damages cannot be apportioned; death is indivisible under Maryland law	Apportionment allowed only if injury is divisible; in Hewitt, injury indivisible; no apportionment sought here
Whether use plaintiffs must formally join to recover	Use plaintiffs were real parties in interest and effectively joined; Rule 15-1001(b) did not require formal joinder at the time	Use plaintiffs failed to formally join; limits apply under statute of limitations	Under law at trial, use plaintiffs were not required to formally join; their participation equated to joinder; remanded with instructions to affirm circuit court while noting Rule changes post-2013

Mayer v. North Arundel Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 145 Md.App. 235 (Md. 2002) (adopts Restatement § 433A on apportionment; divisi ble injuries considered in certain torts)
Hayden v. Wesner, 52 Md.App. 323 (Md. 1982) (use plaintiff mislabeling allowed where real party is identified; fairness considerations)
Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516 (Md. 1990) (one action rule to protect against multiple suits; damages divided among beneficiaries)
Work v. Work, 192 Md.App. 438 (Md. 2010) (Rule 15-1001 not a pure notice rule; use plaintiffs are real parties in interest and must be acknowledged)
Ace American Ins. Co. v. Williams, 418 Md. 400 (Md. 2011) (Rule 15-1001 interpretation and use plaintiffs protections clarified)
University of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp. v. Muti, 426 Md. 358 (Md. 2012) (clarified use plaintiffs joining requirements; spurred 2012 amendments to Rule 15-1001)
Edmonds v. C.G.T., 443 U.S. 256 (S. Ct. 1979) (supports indivisible injuryConcept in maritime torts; full damages against concurrent tortfeasors)