Morgan v. Bill Vann Co.
969 F. Supp. 2d 1358
S.D. Ala.2013Background
- Decedent Rueben Morgan (diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in Feb. 2011; died Nov. 5, 2012) sued multiple defendants, including Flowserve (formerly Duriron), alleging asbestos exposure during his employment at Alabama River Pulp (1978–1992).
- Morgan supervised the pump/machine shop as foreman from Aug. 1, 1979; he did not perform hands-on repairs but supervised and was present when others serviced pumps.
- Durco (Flowserve) pumps were present at the plant; the pumps themselves contained no asbestos, but interior packing and some gaskets used with the pumps at the plant sometimes contained asbestos and generated dust when replaced.
- Flowserve acknowledged pumps shipped with some third-party sealing devices preinstalled; replacement packing/gaskets were sourced and installed by third parties or the plant storeroom.
- Plaintiff alleges Flowserve is liable because Durco pumps required or foreseeably used asbestos-containing components (or recommended such parts), causing Morgan’s exposure; Flowserve invokes the "bare metal" defense, asserting it did not manufacture, supply, or distribute the asbestos components.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama recognizes the "bare metal" defense in asbestos cases | Morgan argues Flowserve should owe a duty to warn because use of asbestos packing/gaskets was a foreseeable modification of its pumps | Flowserve argues manufacturers of bare-metal components are not liable for third-party asbestos parts they did not place in the stream of commerce | Court predicts Alabama Supreme Court would adopt the bare metal defense (with Hannah caveat) and applies it here |
| Whether Durco pumps were defectively designed to require asbestos-containing parts | Plaintiff contends pumps required asbestos packing/gaskets, making the pump itself defective | Flowserve shows no evidence pumps required asbestos; compatible use alone is not a defect | No admissible evidence that pumps required asbestos; design-defect theory fails |
| Whether Flowserve is liable for OEM parts shipped with new pumps | Plaintiff suggests some OEM parts may have contained asbestos when shipped with pumps at startup | Flowserve notes no evidence that OEM parts contained asbestos and plaintiff cannot identify exposure to OEM parts | No evidence Morgan was exposed to asbestos from OEM parts; speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether Flowserve recommended or specified asbestos replacement parts causing exposure | Plaintiff points to alleged OEM/manual recommendations causing plant to stock asbestos parts | Plaintiff offers no evidence that Flowserve supplied such manuals, recommended asbestos parts, or that plant followed such recommendations | Plaintiff produced no factual support; claim is speculative and fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Ingram Equip., 531 So.2d 879 (Ala. 1988) (manufacturer of a nondefective component not liable for defects in products it did not manufacture, sell, or place in the stream of commerce)
- Hannah v. Gregg, Bland & Berry, Inc., 840 So.2d 839 (Ala. 2002) (Sanders inapplicable if plaintiff alleges the defendant's own product is defective)
- Reynolds v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 989 F.2d 465 (11th Cir. 1993) (applying Alabama law: no duty to warn about defects in third-party rim where tire manufacturer did not make rim)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prods. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) (affirming bare-metal defense where defendant did not supply asbestos packing or gaskets)
- O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (pump manufacturers not liable for asbestos packing/gaskets they did not manufacture or distribute)
- Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wash.2d 373 (Wash. 2008) (no duty to warn of asbestos in replacement packing/gaskets not manufactured or distributed by defendant)
Decision: Flowserve's motion for summary judgment granted; claims against Flowserve dismissed with prejudice.