859 F.3d 396
7th Cir.2017Background
- Six consolidated appeals arise from mesothelioma claims by former employees (and decedents) of a Marshfield, WI fire-door plant that used asbestos through 1978; plaintiffs sue Weyerhaeuser (successor to Roddis Plywood) and Owens-Illinois (patent holder/licensor).
- Owens-Illinois held a patent (No. 2,593,050) for a composite fire door; the patent mentioned asbestos among many example core materials but did not require asbestos as an element of the invention.
- Three plaintiffs (Jacobs, Masephol, Seehafer) sued Weyerhaeuser for community/household (non-occupational) exposure; all six asserted negligence/design claims against Owens-Illinois based on its patent/licensing relationship.
- District court excluded expert testimony as unreliable for the three Weyerhaeuser appellants and dismissed their nuisance claims for failure to show substantial non-occupational causation and for lack of a possessory property interest (private nuisance), also noting statute-of-limitations issues.
- Claims against Owens-Illinois were dismissed (and some dismissed with prejudice via stipulation) because courts do not impose product-liability on mere patent licensors; plaintiffs’ repeated attempts to relitigate were deemed frivolous or baseless.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims, ordered plaintiffs to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for Rule 32 type-volume violations and to explain why the Owens-Illinois appeal was not frivolous under Rule 38.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are nuisance claims for ambient/community asbestos exposure barred by Wisconsin workers' compensation exclusivity? | Plaintiffs: injuries were from non-occupational ambient exposure (public/private nuisance), not covered by the Act. | Weyerhaeuser: plaintiffs’ exposures were occupational or insufficiently shown to be non-occupational; exclusive remedy applies. | Court: Dismissed nuisance claims — plaintiffs failed to show substantial non-occupational causation; exclusivity and evidentiary shortcomings controlled. |
| Admissibility/reliability of experts on non-occupational exposure causation | Plaintiffs: experts can show ambient exposure materially contributed to disease. | Defendants: experts unreliable given plaintiffs’ proximity/duration data; causation speculative. | Court: District court did not abuse discretion excluding experts for three appellants; admitted for others closer to plant. |
| Private nuisance standing and timeliness under Wisconsin law | Plaintiffs: ambient contamination limited use/enjoyment of property; harm manifested later. | Weyerhaeuser: private nuisance requires present possessory interest; statute of limitations bars stale claims. | Court: Private nuisance claims failed — plaintiffs lacked present possessory interference and claims likely time-barred. |
| Liability of a patent licensor (Owens-Illinois) for injuries caused by licensee’s product choices | Plaintiffs: Owens-Illinois designed/licensed the door patent; should be liable for design-related asbestos harm. | Owens-Illinois: mere licensing of a patent does not create product-liability; no evidence Owens manufactured the asbestos components. | Court: Claims against Owens-Illinois frivolous and unsupported by law; dismissal affirmed (and plaintiffs barred by stipulation in part). |
Key Cases Cited
- C.W. v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard for appellate review of district court evidentiary rulings under Rule 702)
- Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2001) (voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 waives right to appeal)
- DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 185 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 1999) (requirements for compliance with appellate brief type-volume limits)
- Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 62 F. Supp. 3d 705 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (discussing Hatch-Waxman context where originator liability for generic labeling can be attributed under statutory scheme)