Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.
842 F. Supp. 2d 791
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- MDL-875 asbestos products liability cases were decided under maritime law by Judge Robreno.
- Plaintiffs allege mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos components used with defendants' products aboard Navy vessels.
- Plaintiffs did not prove defendants manufactured or distributed the specific asbestos parts to which exposure occurred.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no liability for third-party asbestos components not manufactured or distributed by them.
- Court previously denied summary judgment on product-identification grounds, finding genuine issues as to substantial factor causation.
- Court now adopts the position that manufacturers are not liable for harm from asbestos products they did not manufacture or distribute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maritime liability for third-party asbestos | Conner/Prange/Stone contend third-party asbestos components cause harm in chain of distribution. | Defendants are not liable for asbestos parts they did not manufacture or distribute under maritime law. | No liability for third-party asbestos components; no duty to warn for those products. |
| Causation standard under maritime law | Exposure to defendants' products with asbestos-containing parts is a substantial factor. | Plaintiffs must prove defendants manufactured/distributed the asbestos products; exposure to third-party parts is insufficient. | Causation requires manufacturers to have manufactured/distributed the asbestos product; third-party parts do not satisfy. |
| Duty to warn third-party asbestos | Defendants owe a duty to warn about risks from foreseeable uses of their products with asbestos. | No maritime duty to warn for dangers from asbestos components not manufactured/distributed by the defendants. | No duty to warn for hazards arising from third-party asbestos products in maritime law. |
| Integrated-products theory under maritime law | Combined intrinsic product and third-party asbestos parts create liability. | Integrated-products doctrine does not extend liability to third-party asbestos products outside the chain of distribution. | Integrated-products theory does not expand liability to third-party asbestos components. |
| Policy underpinning strict liability in maritime context | Manufacturers should bear costs for hazards from combined use of their products with asbestos. | Chain-of-distribution policy and lack of economic benefit from third-party parts negate liability. | Policy supports not holding manufacturers liable for third-party asbestos products. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.2005) (manufacturer not liable for third-party asbestos products in chain of distribution)
- Stark v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 21 Fed.Appx. 371 (6th Cir.2001) (no liability for asbestos-containing components not manufactured/distributed)
- O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2012) (California rule: not liable for harms from third-party asbestos products)
- Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 197 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2008) (non-liability of manufacturers outside chain of distribution for asbestos components)
- Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 198 P.3d 493 (Wash. 2008) (limits duty to warn and strict liability when not manufacturing third-party asbestos)
- East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (integrated products/stream-of-commerce concepts in maritime context)
- Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 134 F.3d 149 (3d Cir.1998) (considerations of economic loss and product-related harm in maritime cases)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2012) (see above)