Falgout v. Anco Insulations Inc
2:21-cv-01443
E.D. La.Oct 25, 2022Background
- Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) asserted third-party claims for virile-share contribution against Foster Wheeler, GE, and Amchem in an asbestos-mesothelioma case; the three moved for summary judgment.
- Avondale relied on deposition testimony of former Avondale employees saying Foster Wheeler boilers, GE turbines, and Amchem Adhesive 81-27 (all asbestos-containing) were present in engine rooms of Avondale-built vessels.
- Key fact witness Ronald Falgout (decedent) testified he worked in engine rooms and near insulators but could not identify manufacturers, never saw insulation applied to turbines, and did not recall encountering Amchem products.
- Corporate representatives for the third-party defendants testified their products used asbestos-containing materials and that such materials were supplied to Avondale.
- Court applied Louisiana asbestos-law standards requiring significant exposure and that exposure be a substantial factor in causing injury; mere presence of a product is insufficient to create liability.
- The court concluded Avondale produced no admissible evidence tying Mr. Falgout’s (and thus Mrs. Falgout’s) asbestos exposure to any specific Foster Wheeler, GE, or Amchem product and granted summary judgment for all three defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Avondale's Argument | Third-Party Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster Wheeler's products caused exposure | Boilers/insulation from Foster Wheeler were present; employees worked near insulators | No evidence placing Falgout at or working on Foster Wheeler boilers; mere product presence insufficient | Granted for Foster Wheeler — no evidence tying Falgout to its boilers |
| Whether GE's products caused exposure | GE turbines were in many engine rooms and required asbestos packing/gaskets | No evidence Falgout worked on/near GE turbines or that GE made the turbines where he worked | Granted for GE — no evidence tying Falgout to GE products |
| Whether Amchem's Adhesive 81-27 caused exposure | Adhesive used extensively in engine rooms; thus Falgout likely exposed | No evidence Falgout encountered Amchem 81-27; he observed different mixing practices | Granted for Amchem — no evidence tying Falgout to Amchem product |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burdens)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009) (elements required to prove asbestos exposure under Louisiana law)
- Williams v. Boeing Co., 23 F.4th 507 (5th Cir. 2022) (plaintiff need only show it is more likely than not he inhaled defendant’s asbestos; slight exposures can be substantial)
- Held v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 672 So. 2d 1106 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996) (standard that inhalation more-likely-than-not can defeat summary judgment)
- Lucas v. Hopeman Bros., 60 So. 3d 690 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (mere physical presence of defendant’s product at a worksite is insufficient to establish exposure)
- Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991) (movant who will bear the burden at trial must produce evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict)