393 P.3d 869
Wash. Ct. App.2017Background
- Yuen Wing Woo worked as a Navy and MSTS engineer on ships in the 1940s–1950s and died of mesothelioma; his estate sued General Electric (GE) for failure to warn.
- GE designed, manufactured, and supplied steam turbines for the ships on which Woo served.
- Evidence showed turbines required exterior thermal insulation, gaskets, and packing to function; in the 1940s–1950s only asbestos-containing materials were available.
- An expert and a former ship engineer testified that: turbines needed asbestos insulation/gaskets/packing; maintenance and vibration routinely released asbestos dust; GE supplied precut gaskets and its service engineers were involved in repairs.
- GE’s corporate representative testified GE did not provide insulation on marine installations and that shipyards normally handled insulation. GE moved for summary judgment under Simonetta/Braaten (no duty to warn for products not in the chain of distribution).
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding material factual disputes existed on GE’s duty to warn and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GE had a duty to warn about asbestos hazards in materials it did not manufacture | GE turbines necessarily required asbestos insulation/gaskets/packing; GE knew only asbestos options existed then, so it had a duty to warn (exception to general rule) | Under Simonetta/Braaten, a manufacturer has no duty to warn about hazards in others' products not in its chain of distribution | Material factual disputes exist; summary judgment reversed — duty to warn is for the jury given evidence that asbestos was necessary and GE knew only asbestos was available |
| Whether Woo was exposed to asbestos from materials used with GE turbines (causation) | Circumstantial and expert evidence show Woo worked near turbines, maintenance and vibration released fibers, and exposures were above ambient levels | GE says there is insufficient evidence tying Woo’s exposure to asbestos used with GE turbines | Court held reasonable inferences and expert testimony create a factual dispute on causation; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether GE’s 1989 Technical Information Letter (TIL) affects duty analysis | TIL admits historic necessity of asbestos and that GE purchased/installed heat retention materials to functional specs, supporting knowledge and involvement | GE contends TIL addresses land-based turbines only and does not prove GE specified or supplied marine insulation | Court finds TIL plus other evidence supports an inference GE knew asbestos was used and sometimes provided or specified materials; raises factual issues for trial |
| Whether this case is controlled by Simonetta/Braaten (no-duty rule) or by Macias (exception) | Estate argues Macias exception applies where a product inherently and necessarily involves exposure or where manufacturer specified/required asbestos | GE argues Simonetta/Braaten control because the Navy chose insulation and GE didn’t place asbestos in stream of commerce | Court distinguishes facts from Simonetta/Braaten and finds Macias-type issues presented — duty question is fact-bound and unsuitable for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wn.2d 341 (manufacturer not liable to warn for asbestos in others' products not in chain of distribution)
- Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wn.2d 373 (no duty to warn for asbestos in exterior insulation applied by Navy; exceptions noted where component was originally included or specified)
- Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, 175 Wn.2d 402 (manufacturer may have duty when product inherently/necessarily exposes user or accumulates contaminants as intended)
- Lockwood v. A C & S, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 235 (factors for assessing circumstantial proof of asbestos exposure and causation)