Reulet v. Lamorak Insurance Company, 3:20-cv-00404

Background

Decedent Kirk Reulet (worked in marine-related trades 1972–2013) died of mesothelioma; Plaintiffs allege asbestos exposure during his work for Barnard & Burk, Inc. (B&B) in 1974 at CF Industries.
Plaintiffs sue many defendants, including Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. (Aerojet), alleged successor to B&B, asserting negligence and strict liability.
Social Security records show earnings from "Barnard Burk Inc % Aerojet-General Corp" in 1974; Plaintiffs rely on union co-worker Charles Becnel’s deposition that he worked side‑by‑side with Decedent during a 1974 shutdown at CF and both inhaled asbestos dust.
Plaintiffs’ industrial hygienist opined exposures at B&B likely exceeded occupational limits and posed significant mesothelioma risk.
Aerojet moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no admissible evidence of exposure while Decedent worked for B&B, and (2) Aerojet is not B&B’s legal successor.
The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes about exposure and concluding the 1981 Purchase Agreement (Appendix J) unambiguously shows Aerojet assumed B&B’s litigation liabilities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Decedent was exposed to asbestos while employed by B&B	Becnel’s testimony and union/employment records show Decedent worked with Becnel at B&B shutdowns and inhaled asbestos; IH expert corroborates risk	Aerojet contends Becnel’s memory is unreliable and testimony insufficient to show exposure	Denied summary judgment — Becnel’s testimony and expert opinion create a genuine factual dispute for jury (creditability not resolved at SJ)
Whether Aerojet is successor to B&B liabilities	Aerojet executed a Purchase Agreement (Appendix J) that expressly assumed B&B’s "Litigation" liabilities, including pre‑closing events	Aerojet argues it did not inherit B&B’s liabilities and disputes Appendix J’s applicability/authenticity	Denied summary judgment — Purchase Agreement unambiguously transfers B&B’s litigation liabilities; prior state court rulings support successor liability finding
Whether plaintiff’s witness testimony is admissible/weighty enough	Becnel’s age and memory lapses are expected; credibility is for jury; testimony is admissible and probative	Aerojet asks court to reject/discount Becnel’s testimony as unreliable	Court treats testimony as competent summary judgment evidence and declines to make credibility determinations at SJ
Whether prior sworn statements and documentary evidence (Appendix J, Social Security records) are competent	Plaintiffs rely on Social Security earnings records and Aerojet’s prior sworn statements/authentication of Appendix J	Aerojet contests Appendix J’s execution/authenticity and relevance of prior statements	Court accepts Social Security records as self-authenticating and treats Aerojet’s prior sworn statements and Appendix J as competent evidence for summary judgment purposes

Key Cases Cited

Owens v. Circassia Pharms., Inc., 33 F.4th 814 (5th Cir. 2022) (summary judgment standard; view evidence and inferences for nonmovant)
Williams v. Boeing Co., 23 F.4th 507 (5th Cir. 2022) (plaintiff need only show a jury could find it more likely than not that slight asbestos exposures occurred)
Held v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 672 So. 2d 1106 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996) (Louisiana authority on sufficiency of slight asbestos exposure evidence)
Richardson v. Oldham, 12 F.3d 1373 (5th Cir. 1994) (credibility determinations inappropriate on summary judgment)
Marchand v. Asbestos Defendants, 52 So. 3d 196 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (prior sworn statements admissible as competent summary judgment evidence)
Hebert v. Richard, 166 So. 3d 1265 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2015) (similar treatment of prior sworn statements)
Bennett v. Porter, 58 So. 3d 663 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2011) (supporting use of prior proceedings’ sworn statements as evidence)
Hawbaker v. Danner, 226 F.2d 843 (7th Cir. 1955) (Social Security records are self‑authenticating)