Collin v. CalPortland Co. CA3
228 Cal. App. 4th 582
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Verna Lee Collin and husband Loren sue 22 entities for mesothelioma-related claims arising from occupational asbestos exposure from 1955 onward.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CalPortland, Kaiser Gypsum, J-MM, and Formosa, finding no triable exposure evidence against each.
- CalPortland manufactured Colton gun plastic cement (asbestos-containing) and non-asbestos plastic cement; Loren identified CalPortland plastic cement but not Colton gun by name.
- Kaiser Gypsum produced asbestos-containing joint compound through mid-1950s–1970s, but evidence did not show when Loren encountered it; Kaiser Gypsum ceased asbestos products by 1976.
- J-MM acquired Johns-Manville’s pipe assets in 1983; Loren testified to Transite/J-M pipes and early-1980s Transite exposure, creating a dispute over post-1983 liability.
- The court affirmed CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum but reversed as to J-MM and Formosa, finding triable issues of exposure and rejecting the sophisticated-user defense for those defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CalPortland prove lack of exposure evidence? | Collin asserts exposure evidence could be inferred from similar products. | CalPortland showed Loren could not tie exposure to Colton gun plastic cement; discovery responses lacked facts. | Yes; CalPortland proper threshold showing and no triable exposure issue. |
| Did Kaiser Gypsum prove lack of exposure evidence? | Loren could have encountered asbestos-containing Kaiser Gypsum joint compound during 1959–1979. | Kaiser Gypsum showed exposure could not be established due to unknown dates and asbestos removal by 1976. | Yes; Kaiser Gypsum properly met threshold burden and no triable exposure issue. |
| Is there triable exposure issue for J-MM/Formosa post-1983? | Loren encountered Transite/J-M pipe into the early 1980s; J-MM and Formosa may be liable after 1983. | No exposure evidence post-1983; products were precluded by formation date and Johns-Manville asset purchase. | Yes; triable issue exists as to post-1983 exposure and alter-ego questions; summary judgment improper. |
| Does the sophisticated user defense defeat duty to warn for J-MM/Formosa? | Loren had no specialized training; warnings could still be applicable. | Sophisticated-user defense applies where user knowledge is generally known in trade; Loren lacked such knowledge. | Not entitled to summary adjudication on sophisticated-user defense; factual issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (requires some exposure to asbestos to prove causation)
- Casey v. Perini Corp., 206 Cal.App.4th 1222 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (discovery responses may shift burden to plaintiff to show triable exposure issues)
- Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 138 Cal.App.4th 96 (Cal. App. Dist. 4) (threshold burden shifting in summary judgment and evidentiary standards)
- Hunter v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., 37 Cal.App.4th 1282 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (addressing exposure proof and reliance on discovery responses)
- McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 98 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (no triable issue where defendant’s product evidence insufficient)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001) (triable issue requires reasonable inference supporting plaintiff's claim)
- Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates, 43 Cal.App.4th 472 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (court rejects inferences drawn from thin air in summary judgment context)
- Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2008) (sophisticated user defense discussed in warnings context)
- Fierro v. International Harvester Co., 127 Cal.App.3d 862 (Cal. App. Dist. 5) (sophisticated user discussion; employer sophistication does not always apply)
- Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 28 Cal.App.4th 650 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (comparison on ashouldering product exposure burden)
- Simmons v. West Covina Medical Clinic, 212 Cal.App.3d 696 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (probability standards discussed in exposure context)
- Hernandez v. Amcord, Inc., 215 Cal.App.4th 659 (Cal. App. Dist. 4) (fact pattern distinguishing exposure evidence)
- Johns–Manville v. Johnson, not applicable here (not applicable) (placeholder to indicate related Transite context)