Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville
16 A.3d 159
| Md. | 2011Background
- Saville sued about 30 defendants for asbestos-related injuries; Scapa was found liable in prior verdicts that were later vacated on appeal.
- A new trial (Jan 2008) resulted in a $1,718,000 verdict against Scapa and W&G; the trial court later reduced it for bankruptcy-trust offsets.
- Scapa’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on Saville’s claims and for a new trial were denied; cross-claims against settling defendants were handled in a bifurcated/complex manner.
- Saville settled with Westinghouse, AstenJohnson, Albany and others prior to trial; Scapa sought post-trial allocations and offsets based on 524(g) bankruptcy trusts.
- The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; this Court granted review to address causation under Balbos, cross-claims procedures, admissions, and § 524(g) trust offsets, remanding for further proceedings inconsistent with this opinion.
- The Court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to determine proper 524(g) offsets after discovery of all relevant trust settlements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation sufficiency under Balbos test | Saville argues evidence shows frequent, regular, proximate exposure to Scapa’s asbestos felts. | Scapa contends Balbos requires stronger, identifiable exposure linking to its felts; evidence was speculative. | Evidence sufficient to submit to jury; Balbos standard met to permit causation question. |
| Preservation and scope of JNOV on cross-claims | Saville contends Scapa preserved cross-claim challenge and trial court erred denying JNOV. | Scapa argues procedural defects bar JNOV on cross-claims. | Trial court properly denied JNOV on cross-claims; no reversible error in that ruling. |
| Effect of Md. Rule 2-424 admissions | Saville’s admissions prove liability against cross-defendants; admissions are conclusive. | Admissions are not conclusive; must be weighed with Balbos standards. | Admissons are not conclusively establishing liability; jury may weigh them as statements of fact. |
| § 524(g) Trusts and Joint Tortfeasors Act offsets | Offsets should reduce Saville’s judgment for all § 524(g) Trust payments; Trusts may be treated as joint tortfeasors. | Trusts are not adjudications or admissions; off-sets depend on precise settlement terms and apportionment rules. | Remand for discovery of all 524(g) settlements; reduce judgment according to Bullinger framework based on settlement terms. |
| Discovery and apportionment of 524(g) trust offsets | Bullinger requires discovery of settlement terms to compute offsets. | Limited disclosures already made; further discovery unnecessary without court order. | Remand to permit discovery of all § 524(g) settlements and apportionment per Bullinger; adjust judgment accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balbos v. Eagle-Picher Fiberglass Corp., 326 Md. 179 (Md. 1992) (establishes frequency, regularity, proximity Balbos test for substantial-factor causation)
- Reiter v. ACandS, 179 Md.App. 645 (Md. App. 2008) (circumstantial evidence required linking product to plaintiff's exposure; proximity alone insufficient)
- Reiter v. Pneumo Abex, 417 Md. 57 (Md. 2010) (affirming Balbos-based causation considerations in asbestos cases)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Inc. v. Garrett, 343 Md. 500 (Md. 1996) (limits on establishing joint tort-feasor status; need for adjudication or release-based proof)
- Bullinger v. Porter Hayden Co., 350 Md. 452 (Md. 1998) (post-verdict discovery; apportionment of damages with 524(g) trusts; set-off framework)
- Martinez v. Lopez, 300 Md. 91 (Md. 1984) (settlement releases and joint tortfeasor status considerations)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107 (Md. 1992) (joint tortfeasor framework and liability sharing)
- Garlock, Inc. v. Gallagher, 149 Md.App. 189 (Md. App. 2003) (pro tanto releases and reduction of verdicts)
- Murnan v. Joseph J. Hock, Inc., 274 Md. 528 (Md. 1975) (admissions rule rationale for conclusive effect in some contexts)
- Mullan Co. v. International Corp., 220 Md. 248 (Md. 1959) (early rule on proof and admissibility of uncontroverted facts)