Dudley v. FMC Corp.
N13C-12-227 ASB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jill Dudley sued on behalf of her late husband Frank Dudley, alleging asbestos exposure from pumps at Cam Chemical Company in Detroit, MI (1966–1967).
- Mr. Dudley testified he repaired gaskets and broke down pumps one to three times per week; he recalled at least ten pumps manufactured by Chicago Pump and coworkers worked on pumps near him one to ten times per week.
- Plaintiff alleged exposure to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by defendant FMC Corporation.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing Plaintiff cannot prove product identification or causation under Michigan law.
- The court applied Michigan law: plaintiff must show exposure to a defendant’s asbestos-containing product used in the specific area where the plaintiff worked and that exposure was a substantial factor in causing injury.
- The court concluded Plaintiff offered only speculative evidence as to FMC’s responsibility (no proof of manufacturer of original or replacement parts or maintenance history) and granted FMC’s motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product identification | Dudley worked on pumps manufactured by Chicago Pump and repaired gaskets—implying exposure to defendant’s asbestos product | Plaintiff failed to identify FMC as manufacturer of the pumps or replacement parts; no maintenance history tying FMC to the pumps | Summary judgment for FMC; plaintiff’s evidence was speculative and insufficient to identify FMC’s product |
| Use-in-area requirement | Mr. Dudley worked on pumps frequently in his work area | No evidence that an FMC asbestos-containing product was used in Dudley’s specific work area | Held that plaintiff did not meet the threshold requirement to show the product was used where he worked |
| Causation (substantial factor) | Frequent work on pumps supports exposure contributing to disease | Without identification of defendant’s product, plaintiff cannot show exposure to FMC’s product was a substantial factor | Court did not reach a favorable causation finding for plaintiff; plaintiff failed threshold identification so causation not established |
| Summary judgment standard | Credibility of testimony supports submission to jury | Evidence was speculative; no reasonable jury could infer FMC’s responsibility | Grant of summary judgment to FMC affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barlow v. John Crane-Houdaille, 477 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. Ct. App.) (threshold requirement: proof of exposure to defendant’s asbestos-containing product)
- Brisboy v. Fibreboard Corp., 418 N.W.2d 650 (Mich.) (explaining substantial-factor causation under Michigan law)
- Allen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 571 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App.) (discussing causation standards in asbestos cases)
- Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 726 F. Supp. 172 (W.D. Mich.) (use-in-area requirement — product must be shown to have been used in the specific workplace area)