Kase v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation
A143590M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Gary Kase alleged asbestos exposure from Unibestos insulation brokered by Metalclad to the U.S. Navy in 1968 and used aboard four nuclear submarines; suit filed in 2011.
- Metalclad brokered Unibestos (manufactured by Pittsburgh Corning) under Navy purchase order referencing MIL-I-2781 and MIL-I-24244; the product shipped directly from Pittsburgh Corning to Mare Island Naval Shipyard and Metalclad never had physical custody.
- The Navy had studied and been aware of asbestos hazards for decades but continued to specify and approve asbestos-containing products for certain insulation grades; Unibestos was the only prequalified product for the requested grades in 1968.
- Metalclad moved for summary judgment asserting the federal government contractor defense (Boyle) for design-defect claims and arguing failure-to-warn claims lacked causation because Metalclad never possessed the product and manufacturer warnings existed/ would have been futile.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Metalclad; the Court of Appeal affirmed, applying Boyle and concluding Navy specifications effectively required asbestos and that there was no triable issue on causation for failure-to-warn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of government contractor defense to design-defect claims | Kase: Unibestos was a commercially available product; Navy didn’t design or manufacture it, so Boyle defense shouldn’t apply | Metalclad: Navy issued reasonably precise specs, reviewed/approved product, and could only be met by asbestos-containing Unibestos | Held: Defense applies — Navy made a discretionary, deliberative design choice via specifications that in practice required asbestos; summary judgment affirmed on design claims |
| Whether commercial availability of product bars Boyle defense | Kase: Commercial availability makes product like a “stock” item (Hawaii) so defense inapplicable | Metalclad: Commercial sale does not preclude defense when government specifications and approval reflect considered judgment | Held: Commercial sale alone does not defeat the defense; focus is on government approval/precise specs and deliberation |
| Whether Navy was already aware of asbestos hazards (Boyle third prong) | Kase: Metalclad must show what Navy knew at contracting and that Metalclad had no greater knowledge | Metalclad: Navy had extensive, decades-long awareness of asbestos risks; Metalclad had no additional information to warn about | Held: Navy plainly knew of asbestos hazards; Metalclad satisfied third-prong (no duty to warn when government already aware) |
| Causation for failure-to-warn claims against Metalclad | Kase: Metalclad could have required Pittsburgh Corning to put warnings on cartons and thus causation remains triable | Metalclad: It never had custody; shipping/packing marks were governed by Navy specs; no evidence Metalclad could have caused warnings to appear; manufacturer added warnings around same time | Held: No triable issue on causation — speculation that Metalclad could have required warnings is insufficient; summary judgment affirmed on failure-to-warn |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1988) (establishes three-part government contractor defense and framing of discretionary federal interest)
- In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1992) (defense inapplicable where goods were readily available commercially and military did not provide specifications)
- Oxford v. Foster Wheeler, 177 Cal.App.4th 700 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (commercial availability does not automatically preclude Boyle defense where detailed military specifications required certain design features)
- Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal.App.3d 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (reiterates focus on whether government specifications reflect considered judgment; commercial sale does not necessarily defeat defense)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) (Boyle defense may apply where government carefully reviewed and approved a contractor’s design, even if design had commercial origins)