Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
2:20-cv-01133
E.D. La.Sep 28, 2022Background
- Decedent James Grant Gooding worked as a Coast Guard marine inspector (1967–1970) and then as a field surveyor for American Bureau of Shipping (1970–~2005), inspecting boilers, machinery, and piping at Avondale and numerous other Gulf Coast shipyards.
- In January 2020 Decedent was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma; he sued on March 4, 2020 asserting wrongful death and survival claims against multiple premises, supplier, manufacturer, and insurer defendants for occupational asbestos exposure.
- Decedent died on March 22, 2020; his heirs (Martha Gooding, Helen Leupold, Caroline Pendergast) substituted as plaintiffs. Certain defendants removed the case to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute.
- Avondale and Avondale executive Albert L. Bossier, Jr. filed crossclaims seeking contribution/virile share from other parties (e.g., Buck Kreihs).
- Multiple defendants moved for summary judgment (Rec. Docs. 635, 638, 639, 640, 641, 643, 646). The court found disputed factual issues regarding exposure and causation and denied each motion on August 28, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate for the moving defendants | Gooding alleges frequent asbestos exposure at defendants' work sites/products sufficient to create triable issues | Movants contend there is no competent evidence linking their products/premises to Decedent's exposure or causation | Denied — movants failed to show absence of genuine issues; factual disputes remain for jury |
| Whether plaintiff met Louisiana asbestos causation standard (significant exposure + substantial factor) | Decedent actively worked with or around asbestos-containing materials; this exposure was a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma | Movants argue plaintiff cannot prove "significant" exposure to their specific products or that exposure was a substantial factor | Court applied Louisiana standard and found evidence created genuine disputes on both elements — for jury determination |
| Whether movants satisfied their Celotex burden on summary judgment | Gooding relies on deposition and exposure evidence to defeat summary judgment | Movants assert Celotex/Anderson require the nonmovant to produce specific admissible evidence and that plaintiffs failed to do so | Court followed Celotex/Anderson and concluded movants did not carry their initial burden to eliminate disputed material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party bears initial summary-judgment burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine-issue standard for summary judgment)
- Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Prod. Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (substantial-factor causation in asbestos cases is generally a jury question)
- Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 976 So. 2d 859 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must show potential exposure to defendant's asbestos products)
- Abadie v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 784 So. 2d 46 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2001) (Louisiana asbestos exposure and causation framework)
- Romano v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 221 So. 3d 176 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (reiterating significant-exposure and substantial-factor tests)
- Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (court cannot weigh evidence or resolve credibility on summary judgment)
- Hopper v. Frank, 16 F.3d 92 (conclusory assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Daniels v. City of Arlington, 246 F.3d 500 (summary-judgment evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 577 (same rule on inferences and summary judgment)