THOMASINA FOWLER, ETC. VS. AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, Â INC.(L-4820-11, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2300-15T4

Willis Edenfield worked at a Bloomfield chemical plant from 1954–1994 where asbestos-containing adhesive products were manufactured; he handled powdered materials in the mill/powder room (scooping, weighing, mixing) and was exposed to visible dust.
Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) supplied Calidria asbestos to the facility from 1970–1982, delivering at least 1,550 pounds in 1970–1971 and 36,823 pounds in 1971–1982.
Two former coworkers testified about workplace conditions: one (Dover) observed Edenfield using asbestos in the mill room and saw UCC materials at the plant; another (Boyd) recalled seeing asbestos-labeled packaging while he worked there (1956–1964).
Edenfield was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2010 and died three months later; the lawsuit was filed posthumously by his widow as wrongful death/product liability against UCC and others; Edenfield was never deposed.
At summary judgment, the trial court found insufficient evidence linking Edenfield’s exposure specifically to UCC’s asbestos and granted judgment for UCC; plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of medical causation (exposure to UCC's asbestos as a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma) to defeat summary judgment	Edenfield worked regularly and directly with friable asbestos dust while UCC supplied large quantities of asbestos to the plant during the relevant period; circumstantial evidence suffices to infer exposure to UCC product	Mere presence of multiple asbestos suppliers and lack of direct proof tying UCC’s product to Edenfield means plaintiff cannot show the required source-specific exposure	Reversed: plaintiff produced enough circumstantial evidence (frequency, regularity, proximity) for a reasonable jury to infer Edenfield was exposed to UCC’s asbestos; summary judgment improper

James v. Bessemer Processing Co., 155 N.J. 279 (discusses substantial-factor medical causation and frequency/regularity/proximity test)
Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581 (asbestos failure-to-warn causation principles)
Becker v. Baron Bros., 138 N.J. 145 (distinguishes product-defect and medical causation)
Sholtis v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 238 N.J. Super. 8 (articulates frequency, regularity and proximity factors)
Hughes v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 435 N.J. Super. 326 (addresses proof of exposure to defendant's specific products)
Provini v. Asbestospray Corp., 360 N.J. Super. 234 (summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff failed to show actual asbestos exposure linked to defendant)
Kurak v. A.P. Green Refractories Co., 298 N.J. Super. 301 (requires proof the source of asbestos was defendant's product)
Goss v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 278 N.J. Super. 227 (mere presence of defendant's products at job site insufficient without linking exposure)
Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (explains the non-rigid nature of the frequency/regularity/proximity test)