Pritt v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, 1:19-cv-10651

Background

Plaintiff Arnold Pritt (and spouse) sued GE and Air & Liquid alleging mesothelioma from asbestos exposure during (a) U.S. Navy service aboard USS Purdy and (b) later work as a civilian union electrician.
Key disputed factual points: whether GE manufactured/designed the Purdy’s ship-service turbine generator (SSTG) components and whether Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from GE-made equipment aboard ship; GE does not dispute Plaintiff’s civilian work on GE electrical equipment but disputes that those products contained or released asbestos at levels sufficient for causation.
Plaintiffs proffered two experts: Dr. Candace Su-Jung Tsai (industrial hygienist) to quantify exposures and Dr. David Zhang (pathologist) to opine on medical causation; GE moved to exclude Tsai and seek summary judgment.
The parties agreed maritime law applies to both the naval and civilian claims; the court treated admissibility under Daubert/Kumho and then addressed Rule 56 causation and failure-to-warn theories under maritime product-liability principles.
Ruling: the court denied GE’s Daubert motion as to Dr. Tsai (and deemed GE’s challenge to Captain Burger moot), granted summary judgment to GE for all claims arising from Plaintiff’s naval service (insufficient evidence tying GE products to asbestos exposure/substantial factor), and denied summary judgment as to claims from Plaintiff’s civilian electrician work (genuine disputes on exposure and failure to warn). The court also permitted pursuit of loss-of-consortium and punitive damages under maritime law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Tsai (Rule 702/Daubert)	Tsai, as industrial hygienist, can reliably opine that Pritt’s job tasks produced above‑background asbestos exposures and link those exposures to tasks/products; medical causation to be addressed by Dr. Zhang.	GE: Tsai lacks reliable methodology, adopts an "every-exposure" theory, ignores company-specific attribution, and her opinions won’t assist the trier of fact.	Denied: Tsai admissible. Her role is exposure assessment, not medical causation; methodological challenges go to weight, cross-examination.
Product‑liability causation — naval (SSTG/exposure aboard USS Purdy)	Pritt asserts he was exposed to asbestos from SSTG maintenance and other shipboard tasks; GE designed or supplied SSTG components.	GE: Westinghouse manufactured the SSTG (turbine and/or generator); where GE did not make the component or the generator was uninsulated, Pritt cannot show exposure to a GE product or substantial-factor causation.	Granted for GE: No triable issue that GE’s products caused naval exposure — Plaintiff’s testimony shows turbine exposures were from Westinghouse equipment and generator dust was carbon/general dust, not asbestos.
Product‑liability causation — civilian (electrician work)	Pritt worked on many GE electrical products (panels, breakers, contactors) and described drilling, wire‑brushing, and other tasks that released asbestos (Bakelite/Genal); experts link such tasks to significant exposures.	GE: Plaintiff’s testimony is speculative; he did not manipulate asbestos components in GE products; Tsai did not allocate exposures to specific companies.	Denied for GE: Genuine disputes exist about whether GE electrical products contained asbestos and whether Plaintiff’s work disturbed them with frequency/proximity to support substantial‑factor causation (triable with experts and testimonial evidence).
Failure‑to‑warn and damages (civilian vs. naval; punitive & consortium)	Plaintiff: GE failed to warn about asbestos in its products; warnings could have been seen/obeyed during civilian work; spouse seeks consortium, punitive available under maritime law.	GE: No duty to warn for naval products; Plaintiff never read GE manuals and testified warnings would not have changed his behavior; punitive/consortium barred under maritime law arguments.	Mixed: Naval failure‑to‑warn claim dismissed (no causation tied to GE products). Civilian failure‑to‑warn denied (genuine dispute whether warnings would have been seen/altered behavior). Court held punitive and loss‑of‑consortium claims permissible under general maritime law.

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping role for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping extends to nonscientific expert testimony)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (two‑part test for whether tort arises under maritime law)
Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (availability of punitive damages under general maritime law)
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (Jones Act context on loss of consortium limitations)
Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (expert admissibility inquiries under Rule 702 factors)
Williams (United States v. Williams), 506 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (proponent bears burden to show admissibility of expert testimony)
Morgan v. Almars Outboards, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 828 (D. Del. 2018) (discussion recognizing punitive damages and loss of consortium under general maritime law)
Vasquez v. GMD Shipyard Corp., 582 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009) (ship dry‑docked for repairs remains in navigable waters for admiralty jurisdiction)