Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a plaintiff’s claims for occupational asbestos exposure were subject to dismissal for failure to establish that the defendant was responsible for the asbestos-containing products to which her husband was allegedly exposed.

Jackie Sullivan sued Viad Corp., alleging that her husband, a U.S. Navy veteran, died from an illness that resulted from his exposure to asbestos-containing products produced by the defendant’s alleged predecessor, Griscom Russell Co. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to establish that an asbestos-containing product for which it was responsible led to the decedent’s injuries. The defendant also argued that it could not be held liable as a successor to Griscom Russell Co.

Granting the motion, the district court found that under maritime law, a plaintiff must show that he or she was exposed to a defendant’s product and that the product was a substantial factor in causing his or her injury. To prove such causation, the court added, a plaintiff must show that the product contained asbestos. Applying these principles here, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to create a genuine dispute regarding the presence of asbestos in Griscom Russell products. The evidence the plaintiff offered, including an operating manual dated decades before her husband’s Naval service, does not prove Griscom Russell distillers contained asbestos, the court said. Moreover, the plaintiff expert’s testimony says nothing about the Griscom Russell distillers or lube coolers to which the decedent was exposed and instead focuses on the presence of asbestos on Navy ships generally. Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff had offered no evidence to create a genuine dispute about the presence of asbestos in or on the alleged Griscom Russell products to which decedent was exposed and failed to demonstrate exposure to a product attributable to the defendant.

The court also found that the defendant was not liable as a successor to Griscom Russell Co. Citing case law, the court found that purchasing a company’s assets does not make the purchasing company liable for the selling company’s obligations except where the purchaser agrees to assume the obligations of the transferor, the transaction amounts to a consolidation, the purchasing corporation is merely a continuation of the transferor corporation, or the transaction is fraudulently entered into to escape liability. Here, the plaintiff’s only proof of the defendant’s alleged successor liability is an exhibit containing documents from other cases. These do not establish that the defendant’s predecessor passed along its liabilities, the court said. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant could not be liable as a successor in interest.

Citation: Sullivan v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 2021 WL 5139976 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2021).