Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99699
S.D. Cal.2014Background
- Donald Willis served as a Navy boiler tender (1959–1980) and was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2012; he died in 2013; Viola Willis (wife) substituted as plaintiff.
- Plaintiffs allege Foster Wheeler supplied boilers, original asbestos-containing gaskets and refractory, and specified/replaced gasket/refractory components on USS O’Callahan and USS Brooke.
- Evidence includes Willis’s testimony linking Foster Wheeler boilers and personnel to gasket/refractory work, invoices showing Foster Wheeler supplied refractory, and documents showing these components contained asbestos.
- Claims include negligence, strict liability (design and failure to warn), intentional failure to warn/fraudulent concealment, false representation under Restatement §402B, and punitive damages.
- Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment arguing lack of exposure/causation, third‑party component non‑liability (O’Neil), government‑contractor immunity (Boyle/Getz), sophisticated‑user defense, failure of plaintiff’s misrepresentation and intentional‑failure‑to‑warn claims, and that punitive damages are unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold exposure to Foster Wheeler product | Willis worked on Foster Wheeler boilers; original and replacement gaskets and refractory containing asbestos were provided/specified by Foster Wheeler | No evidence Foster Wheeler’s products caused exposure; defendant not liable for third‑party components it didn’t make | Denied — triable issues: evidence supports that Foster Wheeler provided/spec’d asbestos parts and supervised refractory work; O’Neil does not bar liability on these facts |
| Substantial factor causation | Expert and testimonial evidence that each non‑trivial asbestos exposure (including from Foster Wheeler gaskets/refractory) substantially contributed to disease | Exposure to Foster Wheeler products not shown to be a substantial factor | Denied — evidence (including expert opinion) permits a reasonable jury to find Foster Wheeler products were a substantial factor |
| Government contractor defense (design and warning) | N/A (Plaintiff opposes) | Foster Wheeler says Navy specifications and approval preempt state defect/warning claims (Boyle/Getz) | Denied as to both: no reasonably precise military specification shown requiring asbestos components or forbidding alternative warnings; factual dispute over whether Navy limited warnings precludes summary judgment |
| Sophisticated‑user defense | Willis not a sophisticated user; employer’s sophistication should not be imputed | Navy was sophisticated and its knowledge should bar duty to warn or impute knowledge to Willis | Denied — doctrine applies to plaintiff’s sophistication, not employer’s; Willis lacked contemporaneous knowledge/training when exposed |
| False representation (Restatement §402B) | Concealment/non‑disclosure of asbestos dangers is actionable | §402B requires an affirmative misrepresentation about chattel quality, not mere omission | Granted — §402B claims require affirmative misrepresentation; omissions/ concealment theory inadequate for §402B strict liability claim |
| Intentional failure to warn / fraudulent concealment | Foster Wheeler knew asbestos was dangerous and suppressed that information; had exclusive knowledge and failed to warn | No duty to disclose to end users; Navy supervision and approval precluded duty | Denied — triable issues exist: evidence supports duty to disclose and intentional suppression; claim may proceed |
| Punitive damages | Evidence of corporate knowledge and continued sales without warning supports malice by managing agents | No evidence of malice by officers/managing agents to meet heightened standard | Denied (motion) — plaintiff produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet clear‑and‑convincing threshold at summary judgment stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (summary judgment burdens in Ninth Circuit)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (government contractor defense for design defects)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (California threshold exposure and substantial factor causation in asbestos cases)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (limits on liability for third‑party asbestos components)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (Ninth Circuit extension of government‑contractor defense to failure‑to‑warn claims)
- Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 56 (sophisticated user defense scope)