Sturgill v. 3M Company, Inc., N15C-12-188 ASB

Background

Plaintiff Larry C. Sturgill died of mesothelioma; he worked on home renovation/construction in Virginia (1971–1973) and was exposed while installing and sanding joint compound (primarily U.S. Gypsum, also Gold Bond/National Gypsum).
Plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos fiber "Calidria," manufactured and sold in bulk by defendant Union Carbide, and contend Union Carbide supplied Calidria to joint-compound manufacturers in the relevant period.
Union Carbide admits it sold raw asbestos (Calidria) to some manufacturers but asserts it did not supply Calidria to U.S. Gypsum’s Staten Island plant (which supplied the Mid-Atlantic region) during the relevant years and was not National Gypsum’s sole supplier for the Baltimore/Gold Bond plant.
Plaintiffs point to internal documents and prior interrogatory answers to argue Union Carbide supplied a large share of asbestos for tape/joint compounds and that Calidria was used in Gold Bond reformulations.
The central factual dispute is whether Union Carbide-supplied Calidria was present in the specific joint compounds to which Sturgill was exposed; Union Carbide submitted plant-level supply records showing limited or no sales to the relevant plants.
The Court reserved ruling to review documentary records and ultimately found no genuine factual dispute that Union Carbide supplied the asbestos at issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Union Carbide supply asbestos (Calidria) to the joint compound that exposed Sturgill?	Plaintiffs argue Union Carbide supplied a large share of asbestos to Gold Bond and to joint compounds generally, citing internal documents and interrogatories.	Union Carbide contends it did not supply Calidria to U.S. Gypsum’s Staten Island plant (which served Virginia) during the relevant period and was not the sole supplier to National Gypsum’s Baltimore plant; plant records corroborate this.	Held for Union Carbide: plaintiffs failed to show Calidria was present in the joint compounds to which Sturgill was exposed; no genuine issue of material fact.
Applicability of bulk-supplier duty to warn to end users	Plaintiffs argue Union Carbide cannot invoke the bulk-supplier defense, asserting affirmative concealment of Calidria’s dangers.	Union Carbide asserts as a bulk supplier to sophisticated manufacturers it owed no duty to end users under Virginia law.	Not reached on merits: Court disposed of case on lack of evidence of supply, so did not decide duty/exception.
Causation — could Calidria exposure be tied to Sturgill's mesothelioma?	Plaintiffs argue a jury could find Calidria exposure proximately caused the disease.	Union Carbide argues plaintiffs cannot prove causation even if exposure occurred.	Not reached on merits: summary judgment granted based on absence of evidence that Union Carbide’s asbestos was among exposures.
Adequacy of plaintiffs' documentary evidence to create a triable issue	Plaintiffs rely on deposition testimony, internal documents, and prior interrogatory responses to create an inference of supply.	Union Carbide submitted contemporaneous plant-level purchase records and later interrogatory clarifications showing other suppliers and limited sales to the relevant plants.	Held for Union Carbide: documentary record forecloses plaintiffs’ inference; evidence does not create a genuine factual dispute.

Key Cases Cited

Merrill v. Crothall-Am., Inc., 606 A.2d 96 (Del. 1992) (summary-judgment standard)
Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (burden on moving party at summary judgment)
Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (shifting burdens at summary judgment)
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (court must not decide factual disputes at summary judgment)
Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, 525 A.2d 146 (Del. 1987) (summary-judgment evidentiary limitations)
Nutt v. A./C. & S. Co., Inc., 517 A.2d 690 (Del. Super. 1986) (evidence needed to infer supplier identity)