Background

• Surre alleges mesothelioma from asbestos insulation exposure during Navy service and subsequent work with Quality Insulation on Pacific boilers.
• Crane Co. did not manufacture or supply the asbestos insulation Surre was exposed to, and did not place it into the stream of commerce.
• Surre contends Crane had a duty to warn about asbestos dangers because insulation was applied to Pacific boilers and Crane knew or should have known of such use.
• Crane previously moved for summary judgment; the Navy-related claims were dismissed; this Court continued to address the Quality Insulation-related claims under New York law.
• Crane historically promoted asbestos insulation for boilers, but there is no evidence it supplied the insulation or that exterior insulation on Pacific boilers was required.
• Record shows Surre worked on new Pacific boilers in 1963–1964, applying asbestos insulation supplied by Quality Insulation, with no shown involvement by Crane in selecting or supplying that insulation.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y.1992) (no duty to warn where defendant did not control the third-party product)
• Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y.1998) (manufacturer must foresee latent dangers to duty to warn)
• Tortoriello v. Bally Case, Inc., 200 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1994) (duty to warn not arising absent role in selecting third-party product)
• Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc., 288 A.D.2d 148 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2001) (foreseeability alone does not create duty to warn absent involvement in contract specifications)
• Hess v. Mack Trucks, 159 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1990) (contractual specification context for installation)