Moeller v. GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19987
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Robert Moeller, a pipefitter, worked with Garlock asbestos gaskets (1962–1970) and faced substantial asbestos insulation exposure (1962–1975).
- Robert died in 2008 from mesothelioma; Olwen Moeller, his wife, sued Garlock for strict liability and negligence, among others.
- Plaintiff alleged Garlock knew of cancer risks in the 1950s but did not warn about gaskets; Garlock disputed that gaskets were a substantial factor.
- Plaintiff presented Dr. Frank and Dr. Webb testimony linking Garlock gasket exposure to mesothelioma; Garlock rebutted with insulation exposure and fiber-type arguments.
- The district court denied Garlock’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial after a 2009 jury verdict in favor of Moeller for negligence (failure to warn) but not strict liability.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to show Garlock gaskets were a substantial factor in causing Moeller’s mesothelioma.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Garlock's product a substantial factor? | Moeller contends Garlock gaskets substantially contributed to mesothelioma. | Garlock argues exposure from insulation dwarfed gasket exposure; no substantial factor shown. | No substantial factor proven; reversed. |
| Is evidence sufficient to prove causation under Kentucky law? | Experts showed gasket exposure contributed to disease. | Exposure quantification lacking; insulation exposure dominant. | Insufficient to prove causation; affirm reversal. |
| Are the jury instructions and verdict consistent? | Instructions allowed split verdict under strict liability and negligence. | Inconsistency between no defect for strict liability and negligence finding. | Not needed to reach decision; court noted potential inconsistency but reversed on sufficiency grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.2005) (high exposure required to infer substantial factor; not all exposure suffices)
- Martin v. Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., 561 F.3d 439 (6th Cir.2009) (causation context: evaluate defendant's acts among other exposures)
- Tipton v. Michelin Tire Co., 101 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir.1996) (defective product analysis; inconsistent verdicts under different theories)
- Sprankle v. Bower Ammonia & Chemical Co., 824 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.1987) (walines on warning theories with strict liability vs negligence)
- Glaser v. Thompson Med. Co., 32 F.3d 969 (6th Cir.1994) (juror credibility and conflicting expert testimony; material issues for the jury)