Willis v. BW IP International Inc.
811 F. Supp. 2d 1146
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Willis filed suit in SC state court for asbestos-related injuries; case removed and transferred to MDL-875 in E.D. Pa.
- Plaintiff’s decedent, Hiram Peavy, worked at Charleston Naval Shipyard (1973–1993) and died of mesothelioma.
- Defendants Foster Wheeler LLC, CBS Corp. f/k/a Westinghouse, and Crane Co. move for summary judgment on government contractor defense.
- Defendants contend Navy specifications controlled warnings and that they complied with those specifications.
- Plaintiff presents evidence aiming to show Navy knowledge and restrictions on warnings, and that other manufacturers placed warnings earlier.
- Court applies Boyle v. UTC framework to determine if genuine issues exist precluding summary judgment on the defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Navy issue reasonably precise specifications for the products? | Willis argues Navy specifications permitted warnings and control over design and labeling. | Foster Wheeler, CBS, Crane assert Navy specs were comprehensive and prohibitive of nonconforming warnings. | Genuine issues of material fact remain on first Boyle element. |
| Did the products conform to the Navy’s reasonably precise specifications? | Willis contends nonconformity evidence and warnings were permitted by Navy practice. | Defendants maintain conformity to Navy specs and lack of required warning provisions. | Not reached due to unresolved first element; factual dispute exists. |
| Did Defendants warn the Navy about asbestos dangers known to them but not to the Navy? | Willis points to Navy ignorance of asbestos dangers and defendants’ failure to warn. | Defendants argue Navy knew asbestos risks earlier; Navy had greater or equal knowledge. | Genuine issue as to third Boyle element; not entitled to summary judgment. |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact that defeats the government contractor defense as a whole? | Willis presents evidence contradicting defendant affidavits and credibility questions. | Defendants contend undisputed facts support defense if first element satisfied. | denial of summary judgment on the government contractor defense. |
| Should the defense be denied because there are material fact disputes affecting elements of Boyle test? | Willis highlights multiple controverting affidavits and deposition testimony. | Defendants rely on Navy inspection and specifications to support defense. | Court denies as to the government contractor defense; issues remain for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (three-prong Boyle framework governs government contractor defense)
- Hagen v. Benjamin Foster Co., 739 F. Supp. 2d 770 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (requires reasonably precise government warnings specifications; rejected heightened removal standard)
- In re Joint E. & S.D.N.Y. Asbestos Litig., 897 F.2d 626 (2d Cir. 1990) (failure-to-warn context: government-approved warnings must reflect considered judgment)
- Beaver Valley Power Co. v. Nat'l Eng'g & Contracting Co., 883 F.2d 1210 (3d Cir. 1989) (government knowledge comparison for superior knowledge prong)