Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2:20-cv-01133

Decedent James Grant Gooding worked as a Coast Guard boiler inspector (1967–1970) and then as an ABS field surveyor (1970–~2005), inspecting boilers, piping, and thermal systems at numerous Gulf Coast shipyards, including Buck Kreihs (aka SANK, Inc.).
Decedent was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in January 2020 and later died; his heirs (Plaintiffs) filed survival and wrongful‑death claims alleging asbestos exposure at multiple sites.
Plaintiffs and cross‑claimant Avondale allege Buck Kreihs’s shipyard work produced asbestos‑containing dust during boiler overhauls and safety‑valve testing, which exposed Gooding while he inspected boilers.
Summary‑judgment evidence included Gooding’s testimony describing visible dust and boiler work at Buck Kreihs, testimony by former Buck Kreihs employees acknowledging asbestos in insulation and lack of dust‑control, and an industrial‑hygiene expert opining likely exposure above background.
Buck Kreihs moved for summary judgment arguing there is no evidence it caused or substantially contributed to Decedent’s asbestos exposure and that Gooding avoided being present during asbestos‑disturbing work.
The court found disputed material facts about both (1) whether Gooding sustained significant exposure at Buck Kreihs and (2) whether that exposure was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma, and therefore denied Buck Kreihs’s motion (including as to crossclaims).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Significant exposure at Buck Kreihs?	Gooding testimony, former employees, and IH expert show asbestos present and inspections exposed him to dust.	Gooding tried to avoid being present during work; no proof Buck Kreihs employees caused his exposure.	Denied SJ — evidence creates a genuine fact issue that Gooding sustained significant exposure at Buck Kreihs.
Was Buck Kreihs exposure a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma?	Medical and IH experts: cumulative exposures (including at Buck Kreihs) more likely than not contributed; mesothelioma can follow brief exposures.	No causal link specifically tying Decedent’s disease to Buck Kreihs work.	Denied SJ — causation is for the jury; evidence suffices to raise a triable issue.
Should summary judgment be granted overall?	Plaintiffs/Avondale: disputed facts make SJ inappropriate; jury must decide.	Buck Kreihs: moves to dismiss all claims and crossclaims for lack of proof.	Denied SJ as to Plaintiffs’ claims and Avondale/Bossier crossclaims; factual disputes preclude judgment as a matter of law.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial if reasonable jury could find for nonmovant)
Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Prod. Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (substantial‑factor causation in asbestos cases is typically a jury question)
Hopper v. Frank, 16 F.3d 92 (unsupported assertions insufficient to defeat SJ)
Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (court may not weigh evidence or resolve credibility on SJ)
Daniels v. City of Arlington, 246 F.3d 500 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant on SJ)
Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 577 (same — procedural summary judgment principles)
Romano v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 221 So. 3d 176 (La. law requires proof of significant exposure and that exposure was substantial factor)
Abadie v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 784 So. 2d 46 (definition of exposure as inhalation and standards for proving exposure in La. asbestos cases)
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (mesothelioma can result from relatively short asbestos exposures)
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Bldg. Materials, Inc., 168 So. 3d 556 (recognized causal connection between asbestos exposure above background and mesothelioma)