Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.
799 F. Supp. 2d 455
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- MDL-875 asbestos litigation involving Navy-related exposures consolidated with four named cases: Conner v. Alfa Laval, Prange v. Alfa Laval, Stone v. Alfa Laval, Willis v. BW IP International.
- Plaintiffs allege mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured for use on Navy vessels.
- In Conner/Prange/Stone, plaintiffs were sea-based Navy workers with exposure largely aboard ships; Willis involves a land-based shipyard worker.
- Defendants move for summary judgment asserting maritime law applies; Plaintiffs contend maritime law does not apply.
- Court must decide whether maritime jurisdiction applies and, if so, apply federal maritime law to the claims in the MDL-875 context.
- Court concludes maritime law applies to Conner, Prange, and Stone but not Willis; Willis is governed by state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maritime law applies under the locality and connection tests. | Plaintiffs contend maritime jurisdiction does not attach. | Defendants contend the claims arise on navigable waters and relate to traditional maritime activity. | Maritime law applies to Conner/Prange/Stone, not Willis. |
| Whether the exposure on sea-based Navy work has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce. | Sea-based exposure could disrupt naval operations and maritime commerce. | Willis involves land-based work with attenuated maritime impact. | Yes for Conner/Prange/Stone; no for Willis. |
| Whether the defendants’ product manufacturing bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. | Manufacture of turbines, pumps, boilers, etc., for marine use relates to maritime activity. | Products are used on vessels and marketed to the marine industry. | Satisfied for Conner/Prange/Stone; maritime jurisdiction applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (established broad maritime jurisdiction beyond pure navigation cases)
- Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982) (requires a connection to traditional maritime activity beyond mere commercial activity)
- Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (multifactor test: locality and connection with maritime activity; resolves jurisdictional questions)
- Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) (two-part connection test: potentially disruptive impact and substantial relationship to maritime activity)
- The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20 (1865) (early locality principle based on situs of the tort on navigable waters)