Margaret Rublee, Et Ano. v. Carrier Corp.
199 Wash. App. 364
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Vernon Rublee worked at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (1965–1980) and was exposed to asbestos-containing refractory products Insulag and Panelag; he died of mesothelioma in 2015.
- Quigley Company manufactured Insulag and Panelag and identified itself as the manufacturer; Quigley was acquired as a Pfizer subsidiary in 1968.
- After acquisition Quigley continued to operate, manufacture, sell, and invoice on Quigley stationery; some Quigley materials also displayed a small Pfizer logo or "subsidiary of Pfizer" language.
- Quigley later entered bankruptcy and an asbestos trust/channeling injunction barred claims based on Pfizer’s ownership or successor liability but did not bar an apparent-manufacturer claim under Restatement (Second) § 400.
- Margaret Rublee sued Pfizer asserting "apparent manufacturer" liability under § 400; the trial court granted summary judgment for Pfizer and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington would apply Restatement § 400 to pre-WPLA claims | § 400 is a recognized basis for apparent-manufacturer liability and should apply | Pfizer did not contest adoption; emphasis on statutory scheme for later claims | Court assumed WA Supreme Court would adopt § 400 for purposes of the appeal and proceeded (issue resolved for case) |
| Proper viewpoint for objective-reliance test | A reasonable ordinary user would think Pfizer manufactured the products because Pfizer branding appeared on materials | Viewpoint should be the reasonable purchaser in the position of actual industrial purchasers (e.g., shipyard procurement) | Court adopted purchaser-focused viewpoint; objective test applied from purchaser position |
| Whether evidence created a genuine issue on objective reliance | Logos, invoices, marketing materials, and worker testimony showing "Pfizer" on bags create a fact question | Evidence shows Quigley identified as manufacturer; Pfizer logo was subsidiary indicia and not prominent enough to induce purchaser reliance | No genuine issue: reasonable industrial purchaser would not conclude Pfizer manufactured the products |
| Alternative tests (actual reliance; enterprise/trademark theory) | Expert branding testimony and worker impressions show actual or enterprise-level reliance | No evidence purchasers relied on Pfizer; no substantial participation in design/manufacture/distribution; no licensing/sales by Pfizer | Court rejected these theories on the record (no actual purchaser reliance; no substantial participation; trademark use did not convert Pfizer into seller) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wn.2d 522 (Washington 1969) (adopts Restatement § 402A strict product liability principles)
- Hebei v. Sherman Equip. Co., 92 Ill.2d 368 (Ill. 1982) (explains purchaser-focused rationale for apparent-manufacturer doctrine)
- Connelly v. Uniroyal, Inc., 75 Ill.2d 393 (Ill. 1979) (apparent-manufacturer/enterprise liability where defendant supplied specifications, trademark authorization, and profited)
- Lou v. Otis Elevator Co., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 571 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (trademark-bearing product and substantial participation can create fact issues for apparent-manufacturer liability)
- Stein v. Pfizer Inc., 228 Md. App. 72 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016) (apparent-manufacturer claim against Pfizer rejected on similar record; distinguishes reliance and substantial-participation theories)