Francis v. Union Carbide Corp.
116 So. 3d 858
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Rendon alleges take-home asbestos exposure from his father, who worked at Pendleton Shipyard from 1943–1945.
- Pendleton's insurer Continental moved for summary judgment, contending Rendon lacked evidentiary proof of exposure.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding Rendon failed to prove exposure to asbestos via his father's work.
- Court of Appeal reverses, finding evidence that Pendleton used asbestos and that Rendon was around his father's dusty work clothes creates genuine issues of material fact.
- Court remands for further proceedings; discusses de novo standard of review and relevant take-home exposure authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for take-home exposure. | Rendon presented evidence of asbestos use at Pendleton and proximity to his father's dusty clothes. | Continental contends no linkage between Pendleton work and Rendon's mesothelioma, and no household exposure proved. | Yes; genuine issues exist; summary judgment reversed. |
| Whether the trial court properly admitted a federal pleading into the record. | Admission of the federal pleading was permissible under discretion to consider opposition evidence. | Admission violated timing rules under Art. 966(B)(1) and Rule 9.9(b). | Yes; trial court did not abuse discretion; admission affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. Am. Sugar Ref., Inc., 952 So.2d 746 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (fact-specific evidence can raise genuine issues in take-home asbestos cases)
- Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So.2d 930 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (every non-trivial asbestos exposure contributes as a cause)
- McAskill v. Am. Marine Holding Co., 9 So.3d 264 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (non-trivial exposure treated as a contributing cause)
- Hebert v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 757 So.2d 814 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard—construe evidence in favor of non-movant)
- King v. Dialysis Clinic Inc., 923 So.2d 177 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (summary judgment de novo review and burden-shifting principles)