Chesher v. 3M Co.
234 F. Supp. 3d 693
D.S.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff James Chesher, a Navy machinist (1965–1989), developed mesothelioma and alleges exposure to asbestos during maintenance of valves and de-aerating feed tanks aboard Navy ships.
- Chesher frequently worked on Crane-supplied valves; those valves contained or were supplied with asbestos-containing gaskets/packing and required periodic replacement.
- Plaintiffs allege Crane either incorporated asbestos components into its original products or specified their use; Crane contends it did not manufacture or supply the asbestos components (invoking the "bare metal defense").
- Case was removed to federal court; Crane moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to warn because it did not make or distribute the asbestos parts.
- The court held a hearing, considered competing federal and state authorities about the bare metal defense and failure-to-warn claims, and denied Crane’s motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does admiralty law apply? | Maritime law governs shipboard asbestos claims. | Same. | Court: Admiralty jurisdiction exists; apply maritime law supplemented by compatible state law. |
| Can an equipment manufacturer be liable for failure to warn about asbestos in third-party replacement parts (bare metal defense)? | Quirin-style exception: liability exists when manufacturer actually incorporated asbestos into original product and specified or made inevitable the use of asbestos replacement parts. | Conner/Lindstrom position: no duty to warn for asbestos products the defendant did not manufacture or distribute. | Court: Bare metal defense does not categorically bar failure-to-warn claims; adopts a Quirin-like, narrow exception under maritime law. |
| Scope of Lindstrom (must plaintiff prove exposure to defendant’s product)? | Plaintiffs: Lindstrom is a manufacturing-defect causation rule and need not bar failure-to-warn claims. | Crane: Lindstrom requires proof of exposure to defendant’s product in all product-liability contexts, including failure-to-warn. | Court: Lindstrom is best read as addressing manufacturing/design defect causation and does not foreclose narrow failure-to-warn claims. |
| Did plaintiffs present triable facts that Crane incorporated or specified asbestos components? | Evidence (Crane admissions, Navy/Crane drawings, expert affidavits) shows Crane supplied valves that included or specified asbestos gaskets/packing, raising inevitability. | Crane: Navy specifications dictated asbestos use; Crane did not specify and did not control replacement parts. | Court: Genuine factual dispute exists about who specified components and whether asbestos use was inevitable; summary judgment denied on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.) (articulated rule that plaintiff must show exposure to defendant’s product and substantial-factor causation in maritime product-liability claims)
- Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (applied bare metal defense to preclude failure-to-warn liability for products a defendant did not manufacture or distribute)
- Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 760 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (recognized narrow duty-to-warn where manufacturer incorporated asbestos components and use of asbestos replacements was inevitable or specified)
- O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (discussed limits of liability for products used with asbestos and noted potential exception where a finished product requires a defective part)
- In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig., 27 N.Y.3d 765 (N.Y. 2016) (recognized duty to warn when third-party product is necessary as a matter of design, mechanics, or economic necessity)
- May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 129 A.3d 984 (Md. 2015) (held manufacturer may owe duty to warn where asbestos components are critical and periodic maintenance inevitably exposes workers)