Lucas v. Hopeman Bros., Inc.
60 So. 3d 690
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Charlotte Lucas et al. sues for wrongful death of Lois G. Lucas alleging asbestosis from exposure at Avondale Shipyards (1966–1975) while decedent worked as a pipefitter helper.
- Discovery closed December 25, 2009; four defendant entities moved for summary judgment arguing lack of evidence tying decedent to their asbestos-containing products.
- Only eyewitness to decedent’s work activities at Avondale is Wilton Mouton; plaintiffs rely on his testimony to show exposure to walls, wallboard, and other asbestos-containing materials.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Hopeman Brothers, Westinghouse/CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Reilly Benton; plaintiffs appealed arguing genuine issues of material fact existed and credibility determinations were misapplied.
- Westinghouse/CBS supplied Micarta wallboard (asbestos-containing) used by Hopeman Brothers; Foster Wheeler and Reilly Benton supplied other asbestos-containing products; plaintiffs sought to hold each liable for substantial contributing exposure.
- Appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Westinghouse/CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Reilly Benton, but reversed in part as to Hopeman Brothers and Johnson, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hopeman Brothers' wallboard exposure creates a triable issue | Lucas argues Mouton’s testimony shows decedent worked near Hopeman-installed wallboard containing asbestos, creating a genuine issue of material fact. | Hopeman Brothers contends Mouton’s testimony does not place decedent near wallboard work, only near flooring/doors, and there is no evidence of decedent’s exposure to Hopeman-installed wallboard. | Yes; summary judgment against Hopeman Brothers reversed; genuine issue of material fact exists. |
| Whether Westinghouse/CBS’s Micarta wallboard exposure was a substantial factor | Lucases contend decedent was exposed to Westinghouse/CBS wallboard; exposure was substantial and caused asbestosis. | Westinghouse/CBS argues plaintiffs failed to prove decedent’s exposure to its Micarta wallboard and that such exposure was a substantial cause. | No; Westinghouse/CBS summary judgment affirmed; plaintiffs failed to prove causation by its product. |
| Whether Foster Wheeler exposure related to decedent’s injury | Exposure occurred via insulation work on Foster Wheeler boilers at Avondale. | Record lacks evidence tying decedent to Foster Wheeler insulation work or to any asbestos exposure from Foster Wheeler boilers at Avondale. | Yes; Foster Wheeler summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Reilly Benton exposure can be linked to decedent’s asbestosis | Reilly Benton insulation materials could have exposed decedent to asbestos. | Evidence only places decedent at sites with multiple vendors; no proof of exposure to Reilly Benton products containing asbestos. | Yes; Reilly Benton summary judgment affirmed. |
| Standard for causation in long-latency asbestos cases | Plaintiffs must show exposure to defendant’s product was a substantial factor in injury. | No single defendant’s product shown to be a substantial factor; mere presence of asbestos somewhere at site is insufficient. | Yes; causation required; court limited liability to proven substantial exposure by each defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Danos v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 989 So.2d 160 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (long latency; use of records from other proceedings permissible to prove exposure)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (causal link between asbestos exposure and asbestosis; substantial factor standard)
- Quick v. Murphy Oil Co., 643 So.2d 1291 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1994) (concurrent causation in asbestos cases; multiple defendants; substantial factor)
- Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Co., 242 La. 471, 137 So.2d 298 (La. 1962) (substantial factor test for cause-in-fact)
- Bordelon, Inc. v. In re Asbestos, 726 So.2d 926 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1998) (proof of substantial exposure required; mere presence insufficient)
- Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So.2d 930 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (substantial factor causation; multiple causes and liability)
- In re: Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 726 So.2d 926 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (long-latency exposure; causation and substantial factor standard)