Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co.
248 P.3d 1052
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- James Morgan, a PSNS employee for ~37 years, developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure and died in 2008; Kay Morgan continued the suit.
- Morgan filed in King County Superior Court Aug 29, 2007 against ~50 defendants, manufacturers/suppliers of pumps and valves with asbestos components.
- Morgan alleged exposure occurred from both original pumps/valves and replacement packing/gaskets containing asbestos.
- Respondents moved for summary judgment, relying on Braaten and Simonetta that manufacturers owe no duty for asbestos not manufactured/sold by them.
- Trial court granted dismissal on summary judgment; Morgan appealed, and the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of exposure evidence under Lockwood | Morgan's evidence shows exposure to respondents' asbestos products. | Evidence fails to prove respondents manufactured/supplied asbestos or caused exposure. | Issues of material fact exist; not proper for summary judgment. |
| Government-contractor defense viability | Defense does not bar claims; warnings/design issues differ from contractor defense. | Defense bars liability where Navy specs were followed and hazards known to Navy. | Defense is an affirmative, fact-intensive jury issue. |
| Application of Braaten and Simonetta to exposure evidence | Morgan shows original or replacement asbestos-containing products by respondents. | Braaten/Simonetta require lack of exposure evidence to respondents' products. | Braaten/SSimonetta not controlling; factual dispute exists as to exposure. |
| Causation under Lockwood factors | Proximity, duration, product type, and medical causation support substantial-factor causation. | Evidence insufficient to show substantial factor alone due to other exposures. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a material fact issue for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wash.2d 373 (2008) (duty to warn/causation limited when not manufacturing or supplying asbestos-containing product)
- Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wash.2d 341 (2008) (no duty to warn for non-manufactured asbestos-containing product)
- Lockwood v. AC&S, Inc., 109 Wash.2d 235 (1987) (factors for proving causation in asbestos exposure cases)
- Van Hout v. Celotex Corp., 121 Wash.2d 697 (1993) (drift of asbestos dust; reliance on circumstantial evidence acceptable)
- Berry v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 103 Wash.App. 312 (2000) (circumstantial exposure evidence permissible when brands and workplace context shown)
- Allen v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 138 Wash.App. 564 (2007) (exposure may be shown by workplace witnesses identifying manufacturers)