In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation
873 F.3d 232
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Two consolidated appeals (Devries and McAfee) by widows of Navy sailors alleging asbestos-related cancers from exposure aboard Navy ships and at shipyards.
- Defendants are manufacturers who supplied engine and equipment components in "bare-metal" form (without asbestos-containing insulation or parts later added aboard ships).
- Plaintiffs asserted negligence and strict liability claims; defendants moved for summary judgment invoking the "bare-metal defense."
- District Court applied a bright-line rule (bare-metal manufacturers never liable) and granted summary judgment on negligence and strict liability; this Court remanded for clarification and then reviewed the issue de novo.
- Third Circuit: plaintiffs waived strict liability on appeal; adopted a foreseeability-based (fact-specific) standard for negligence claims, vacated summary judgment on negligence, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of the bare-metal defense | Bare-metal manufacturers can be liable when their conduct made asbestos-related injury foreseeable | Bare-metal manufacturers are never liable for injuries caused by later-added asbestos-containing parts | Court: Adopt a fact-specific foreseeability standard for negligence; bare-metal manufacturers may be liable in some circumstances; vacated summary judgment on negligence and remanded |
| Doctrinal basis: duty vs causation | Foreseeability imposes duty to warn and liability under negligence | Defense framed as a causation argument eliminating proximate cause | Court: Defense rests on foreseeability, implicating both duty (negligence) and proximate cause (negligence/strict liability), but plaintiffs waived strict-liability argument on appeal |
| Rule vs standard (uniform bright-line rule v. case-by-case standard) | Standard (foreseeability) better protects sailors and fits maritime law's solicitude for seamen | Bright-line rule promotes uniformity, predictability, and simplicity | Court: Maritime law's "special solicitude" for sailors favors a foreseeability-based standard over a categorical rule |
| Other defenses preserved for remand (causation evidence; government-contractor defense) | Plaintiffs contend factual record supports causation and defenses should be addressed below | Defendants argue insufficient evidence of causation and entitlement to government-contractor immunity | Court: Declined to resolve on appeal; left these issues for the district court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970) (maritime law’s special solicitude for sailors and liberal remedial tradition)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Tr., 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.) (articulates bright-line bare-metal defense)
- Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1994) (foreseeability as part of duty and proximate cause)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959) (maritime traditions of simplicity and practicality)
- Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) (maritime interest in protecting commerce)
- Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982) (interest in uniform rules governing maritime conduct)
- Faush v. Tues. Morning, Inc., 808 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)