Waite v. AII Acquisition Corp.
194 F. Supp. 3d 1298
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Plaintiffs James and Sandra Waite sued multiple asbestos product manufacturers alleging Mr. Waite developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos dust while performing brake and clutch repairs over decades; 20 of 39 owned vehicles were Fords and he performed at least ~160 brake jobs in his life.
- Union Carbide was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Daimler/Walden principles; Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider that dismissal was denied.
- Ford is the sole remaining defendant and moved to exclude Plaintiffs’ causation experts (Daubert) and for summary judgment arguing Plaintiffs cannot prove Ford-caused exposure sufficient for specific causation; Plaintiffs cross-moved to exclude portions of Ford’s experts.
- Plaintiffs proffered historian Dr. Barry Castleman and causation experts Drs. Arthur Frank and Arnold Brody; Ford proffered competing experts and attacked methodology and reliance on certain epidemiology and industry-funded studies.
- The court conducted Daubert analyses for all contested experts, addressed the “bare metal” defense (Ford’s argument that it cannot be liable for asbestos in replacement parts it did not supply), and evaluated whether Plaintiffs created genuine disputes of material fact on causation for summary judgment purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Plaintiffs’ historian (Castleman) | Castleman is qualified by education, publications, and decades of asbestos/public-health work to explain historical knowledge and corporate conduct. | Ford argued Castleman lacks requisite expertise and his historical narrative is unreliable/irrelevant. | Court admitted Castleman: qualifications, reliability, and helpfulness met; challenges go to weight not admissibility. |
| Admissibility of Plaintiffs’ causation experts (Frank, Brody) | Experts used weight-of-evidence methodology (IARC/WHO/ATSDR approach) combining epidemiology, toxicology, cellular studies to opine on specific causation and cumulative exposure. | Ford attacked methodology, alleged insufficient dose quantification, overreliance on non-automotive epidemiology, and argued chrysotile potency dispute undermines opinions. | Court admitted Frank and Brody: methodology reliable and helpful; general causation established for asbestos; dose and factual disputes challenge credibility and go to the jury. |
| Admissibility of Ford’s experts / critics of industry-funded studies | Plaintiffs argued Ford’s experts rely on tainted/industry-funded literature and should be excluded. | Ford argued its experts’ reliance on peer-reviewed epidemiology is proper. | Court denied Plaintiffs’ Daubert challenge: funding and study limitations go to weight and cross-examination, not exclusion. |
| Summary judgment on causation / bare metal defense | Plaintiffs: evidence (at least 8 OEM Ford brake/clutch jobs, exposure metrics, expert analysis) raises genuine fact issues that Ford products contributed substantially to disease. | Ford: insufficient proof that Ford products caused substantial exposure; many repairs involved replacement/non-Ford parts so bare metal defense bars liability. | Summary judgment denied: disputed factual issues on exposure and causation exist; bare metal defense not dispositive where OEM exposures are shown and jury must resolve magnitude/substantial-factor questions. |
| Motion to reconsider dismissal of Union Carbide (jurisdiction) | Plaintiffs argued the Court misapplied Walden/Fraser and overlooked Union Carbide’s nationwide failure-to-warn creating a Florida tie. | UCC argued lack of suit-related conduct in Florida; prior ruling dismissing UCC for lack of specific jurisdiction under Walden was correct. | Motion denied: Court found no clear error or new authority; May 4 Order stands—specific jurisdiction lacking under Walden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district courts act as gatekeepers to assess expert reliability).
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping extends to non-scientific expert testimony).
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific jurisdiction requires defendant’s own contacts with the forum and suit-related conduct).
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction over foreign corporations).
- McClain v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (where general toxicity is accepted, focus is on specific causation).
- Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973) (mesothelioma causation from asbestos exposures; cumulative exposure concept).
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine dispute and materiality).
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 1984) (plaintiff must show it is more likely than not defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor).