Evans v. CBS Corp.
230 F. Supp. 3d 397
D. Del.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Icom Henry Evans and Johanna Elaine Evans sued multiple defendants in an asbestos-related personal-injury action alleging Mr. Evans developed mesothelioma from occupational exposures while a Navy boilerman (1957–1967) and from later brake work. The case was removed to federal court.
- Seven defendants (CBS/Westinghouse, Crane, Union Carbide, Ingersoll Rand, FMC/Northern Pump, McNally/Northern Fire, and Western Auto Supply) moved for summary judgment; Plaintiffs did not respond.
- Mr. Evans testified at deposition about working on boilers and valves aboard the USS Kearsarge and USS Bole, noticing dust when hammering refractory brick and when cleaning brake drums, but provided little or no specific product identification linking any defendant’s asbestos-containing product to his exposures.
- Several defendants invoked the “bare metal” defense — that they manufactured metal equipment but not asbestos-containing replacement parts (gaskets, packing, or brake linings) — and argued Plaintiffs failed to show substantial exposure to any defendant’s product.
- Magistrate Judge Fallon recommended granting all seven unopposed summary judgment motions for lack of evidence establishing exposure to a defendant-manufactured asbestos product and therefore failure to satisfy maritime or Colorado causation standards; the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation and entered judgment for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs proved exposure to a defendant-manufactured asbestos product sufficient to establish causation under maritime law | Evans points to his work on Navy boilers/valves and brake jobs and alleges exposure to asbestos-containing materials used in those contexts | Defendants contend Evans offered no admissible evidence identifying their products as asbestos-containing or showing substantial/regular exposure to their products | Summary judgment for each defendant — Plaintiffs failed to establish exposure to a defendant’s asbestos product or that such exposure was a substantial factor in causing injury |
| Applicability of the “bare metal” defense | Plaintiffs argue defendants’ equipment use exposed Evans to asbestos-containing replacement parts | Defendants assert they made the metal equipment, not the asbestos-containing replacement parts, so they owe no duty for others’ products | Court accepted the bare metal defense where applicable and found it precluded liability absent proof defendants manufactured/distributed the asbestos parts |
| Choice of law for land-based claims (Western Auto Supply) | Plaintiffs rely on Colorado law for land claims | Western sought application of Colorado substantive law and argued plaintiffs couldn’t show regular, extended exposure to Western’s brakes | Under Colorado law, summary judgment for Western — Evans’ testimony did not show exposure to Western-manufactured asbestos brakes on a regular, extended basis |
| Effect of plaintiffs’ failure to respond to summary judgment | Plaintiffs offered no opposing evidence or submissions | Defendants urged dismissal for failure to oppose; defendants still had to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Court granted summary judgment after independently determining the uncontroverted record did not support plaintiffs’ essential causation elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and inference-drawing rules)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (asbestos causation under maritime law requires exposure to defendant’s product that was a substantial factor)
- Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 791 (recognizing and explaining the bare metal defense under maritime law)
- Jerome B. Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (tests for maritime jurisdiction: location and connection)
- Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (requirement of regular/extended exposure to a specific asbestos product to prove causation)