525 F.Supp.3d 217
D. Mass.2021Background
- Plaintiff Glenn E. Sebright, a former U.S. Navy machinist mate, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and alleges asbestos exposure while serving aboard the USS Boston (1968–1970) and USS Little Rock (1974–1976).
- GE manufactured the steam turbine generator sets installed in those ships; GE delivered the sets “bare metal,” but the turbines were later covered with removable lagging/insulation pads that plaintiffs allege contained asbestos.
- Velan Valve Corp. manufactured valves; plaintiff relies principally on one shipmate (Hiltz) to place Velan valves in Fire Room 2 on the USS Boston and to describe valve work that released dust.
- The district court held maritime law governs the dispute, applied the Supreme Court’s DeVries duty-to-warn framework, and considered Boyle for the government‑contractor defense.
- Rulings: the court DENIED GE summary judgment on Counts I (negligence failure-to-warn) and II (warranty) and on GE’s government‑contractor defense (genuine issues remain); the court GRANTED GE summary judgment as to Counts III–IV (loss of parental society and loss of consortium); the court GRANTED Velan summary judgment (plaintiff failed to show sufficient evidence that Velan valves containing asbestos substantially contributed to his exposure).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn under maritime law (DeVries) | DeVries applies; GE knew or should have known turbines would be integrated with asbestos lagging and sailors would not realize the danger | GE says turbines were delivered bare metal, MILSPECs controlled insulation, and DeVries prongs are not met | Court: genuine factual disputes exist on all three DeVries prongs; summary judgment denied as to duty-to-warn claims against GE |
| Substantial-factor causation (Velan valves) | Velan valves were present in Fire Room 2, valve work released asbestos dust, and Sebright worked nearby | Velan says plaintiff cannot show Velan valves were present then, that those valves contained asbestos, or that plaintiff had exposure to Velan valves sufficient to be a substantial factor | Court: plaintiff failed to prove an essential element (that specific Velan valves contained asbestos and caused substantial exposure); summary judgment for Velan granted |
| Substantial-factor causation (GE generator insulation) | Plaintiff and experts testify he worked on/near insulated GE turbines, inhaled dust from removed lagging, and experts link exposure to disease | GE argues lack of product-specific proof and insufficient exposure to GE products as a substantial factor | Court: factual disputes (presence of asbestos lagging, plaintiff’s proximate work, and exposure magnitude) preclude summary judgment for GE on causation |
| Availability of loss-of-consortium / parental-society damages | Plaintiff urges those remedies under maritime/product-law principles and Townsend reasoning | GE invokes Miles and Horsley; maritime law precludes such claims for seamen and analogous maritime contexts | Court: Counts III & IV are not cognizable under maritime law here; summary judgment for GE on those counts granted |
| Government‑contractor defense (Boyle) | GE invokes Boyle (and Holdren adaptation for warnings) to bar liability if Navy specifications/approval controlled warnings | Plaintiff contends defense inapplicable or factual disputes exist about Navy control over warnings | Court: disputed facts as to all Boyle elements and related warning-specification issues; summary judgment denied for GE on this defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, 139 S. Ct. 986 (2019) (establishes three‑prong maritime duty‑to‑warn test when a product is integrated with a dangerous part)
- Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (government‑contractor defense elements for preemption/immunity)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (location and connection tests for maritime jurisdiction)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (limits recovery of certain consortium damages under general maritime law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: burden on movant and necessity for nonmovant to show essential elements)
- Lindstrom v. A–C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) (discusses substantial‑factor causation/exposure standards in asbestos maritime cases)