Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Etc. v. Britt
226 So. 3d 1059
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Dennis Britt (later substituted by his wife Rosa-Maria Britt as personal representative) sued Northrop Grumman for asbestos exposure leading to fatal mesothelioma; jury awarded estate medical/funeral expenses and $8.5M to Mrs. Britt.
- Mr. Britt worked as an employee benefits advisor who visited industrial sites (including Northrop facilities in Bethpage, NY and Hawthorne, CA) from circa 1979–mid‑1980s and testified to observing asbestos remediation/maintenance and inhaling dust.
- Pathology reports, lung tissue fiber counts, and expert medical testimony were presented; Northrop’s internal records showed no routine air sampling at the facilities during the relevant period.
- Key contested evidentiary matters: timeliness of substitution after death under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260(a)(1); causation proof; admissibility of plaintiff’s causation expert Dr. Murray Finkelstein; admission of an Italian pathology/fiber report by Dr. Anna Somigliana disclosed shortly before trial; and exclusion of potential nonparty (Fabre) defendants for apportionment.
- The trial court denied Northrop’s directed verdict motions, admitted the contested expert and pathology evidence, excluded Fabre apportionment for Mack Trucks and Bekins for lack of proof of asbestos at those sites, and entered final judgment; the appellate court affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of substitution after decedent’s death under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260(a)(1) | Britt’s counsel promptly notified the court and parties by email/letter three days after death; substitution should be allowed | Northrop: email/letter triggered the 90‑day clock; late formal motion requires dismissal | Court held the 90‑day period is triggered only by a filed/served suggestion of death (docketed); email to judge was not filed — substitution was properly allowed when later filed and served. |
| Causation / directed verdict | Britt: pathology, lung fiber counts, exposure testimony and expert opinion constitute competent substantial evidence that Northrop exposures were a substantial cause | Northrop: plaintiff failed to quantify exposure at Northrop; insufficient evidence to support causation | Court sustained verdict — substantial evidence (pathology + exposure testimony + lack of employer air monitoring) supports causation; deny directed verdict. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Finkelstein (causation expert) | Finkelstein applied accepted epidemiological methods, peer‑reviewed work, and ruled out alternative causes; did not give an improper “single‑fiber/any‑exposure” opinion | Northrop: opinion was effectively an “any exposure” causation and scientifically unreliable under Frye/Daubert | Court found no abuse of discretion admitting Finkelstein under Daubert/Frye; expert’s methodology and credentials supported admissibility. |
| Admission of Dr. Somigliana’s Italian fiber/pathology report (late disclosure) | Britt: report was listed pretrial, translated, methodology disclosed, and deposition taken; offered as business record for authentication | Northrop: late disclosure prejudicial, trial by ambush; sought exclusion/sanction | Court held report admissible; timing not unduly prejudicial given disclosure, translation, deposition, and court invitation to request relief. |
| Fabre nonparty apportionment (Mack Trucks, Bekins) | Northrop: testimony suggested exposures at Mack and Bekins, so they should be listed as Fabre defendants for apportionment | Britt: no evidence those sites had asbestos in relevant products/areas during visits; proffer insufficient | Court affirmed exclusion of Fabre apportionment — Northrop failed to present preponderant evidence of nonparties’ liability/fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2003) (standard of review for substitution/timeliness questions)
- Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Gregory, 96 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957) (service must include filing to present pleading to court)
- Wilson v. Clark, 414 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (suggestion of death is recorded/filing that triggers Rule 1.260)
- Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) (nonparty fault apportionment and Fabre defendant standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (federal admissibility/gatekeeping standard for expert testimony)
- Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 206 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (rejection of “every‑exposure” expert testimony under Daubert)