IN RE ASBESTOS & ASBESTOS INSULATION MATERIAL, ETC.

Citation431 F. Supp. 906
Decision Date07 April 1977
Docket NumberNo. 269.,269.
PartiesIn re ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS INSULATION MATERIAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL and ANDREW A. CAFFREY, Judges of the Panel.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This litigation consists of 103 actions pending in nineteen districts. The distribution of these actions is as follows:

                Northern District of Ohio                      23
                Southern District of Texas                     20
                District of Connecticut                        16
                Eastern District of Texas                      12
                District of South Carolina                      7
                District of New Jersey                          6
                Southern District of Florida                    4
                Eastern District of Illinois                    2
                Eastern District of Michigan                    2
                District of Montana                             2
                Eastern District of Tennessee                   1
                Western District of Pennsylvania                1
                Eastern District of Pennsylvania                1
                Eastern District of Missouri                    1
                Eastern District of Louisiana                   1
                District of Rhode Island                        1
                Southern District of Indiana                    1
                District of Maryland                            1
                Southern District of West Virginia              1
                

The 103 actions have been brought by workers who were exposed to asbestos dust in the course of their employment, or by persons associated with those workers, either as co-workers or as members of the family. Many diverse types of vocational exposure are involved in these actions.1 Plaintiffs in most of the actions are or were workers at plants which produce asbestos products (the factory worker actions), or tradesmen who work with a variety of asbestos products (the tradesman actions). A majority of the tradesmen are installers of insulation products containing asbestos. Ninety-four of the actions are tradesman actions and nine of the actions are factory worker actions.

Six of the actions were brought as class actions on behalf of employees at three different plants that manufacture or once manufactured asbestos products. Three of the actions in the Eastern District of Texas were brought as class actions on behalf of employees at a PPG Industries plant in Tyler, Texas. Class certification has been denied in these three actions. The other three purported class actions are pending in the District of New Jersey, see note 1, supra. Two are brought on behalf of employees of Raybestos Manhattan, Inc. at a now defunct plant in Passaic, New Jersey. The other action is brought on behalf of employees at a Johns-Manville, Inc. plant in Manville, New Jersey. Class certification is still pending in the New Jersey actions.

There are a total of 80 defendants in the 103 actions. The majority of the defendants are manufacturers or distributors of various asbestos products. Johns-Manville is a defendant in 91 of the actions.2 Seven other defendant corporations are named in more than 50 actions, seven others are named in more than 30 actions, and ten others are named in ten or more actions.

The complaints in the actions generally allege that the defendants wrongfully caused the plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos dust and asbestos fibers over a period of time, as a result of which the plaintiffs have contracted or are in danger of contracting asbestosis, mesothelioma, or other disorders. Alleged liability is based on the principles of strict liability, negligence, and/or breach of warranties of merchantability and/or fitness. It is also alleged that the defendants knew or should have known of the dangers to persons exposed to asbestos products,3 but that defendants failed to

                                      Actions
                   District      Involved      Type of Vocational Exposure         
                                               3       One purported class action on behalf of employees
                                                       of Johns-Manville plant in Manville, N.J.; two individual
                                                       actions brought by workers at that plant
                                               1       Truck driver who delivered products produced at a
                                                       Johns-Manville plant
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                D. South Carolina              7       Individual insulation workers
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                S.D. Florida                   4       Individual insulation installers
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                E.D. Louisiana                 1       Worker in plant manufacturing asbestos floor tile
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                E.D. Pennsylvania              1       Salesman of insulation products for Johns-Manville
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                W.D. Pennsylvania              1       Employee of distributor of insulation products
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                E.D. Michigan                  1       Employee of distributor of insulation products
                                               1       Individual insulation worker
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                E.D. Missouri                  1       Individual insulation worker
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                E.D. Tennessee                 1       Individual insulation worker
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                E.D. Illinois                  2       Individual insulation workers
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                D. Montana                     2       Individual insulation workers
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                D. Rhode Island                1       Individual insulation worker
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                D. Maryland                    1       Individual insulation worker
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                S.D. Indiana                   1       Individual insulation worker
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                S.D. West Virginia             1       Individual insulation worker
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                

warn the plaintiffs of these dangers; failed to provide adequate precautions, safety devices, or wearing apparel to prevent exposure; and/or failed to establish reasonable standards for exposure.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c)(i) and Rule 8, R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 258-59 (1975), the Panel issued an order to show cause why all these actions should not be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.4 All except one5 of the 55 respondents to the Panel's order to show cause oppose transfer in this litigation. The primary arguments presented by the parties in opposition to transfer are the following:

(1) Many of the actions have been pending for several years and are well advanced in discovery. In several actions a discovery cutoff date or a trial date has been set. Transfer would merely delay the progress of discovery or the trial of those actions.

(2) In several districts, arrangements for voluntarily sharing the common aspects of discovery have been made among the parties to the actions pending within those districts. Transfer would cause unnecessary additional expenses which can be avoided by voluntary coordination of efforts among the parties.

(3) There is a lack of commonality among the parties in these actions.

(a) There is considerable variation in named defendants from action to action. No defendant or category of defendants is a party to all actions. Defendants include manufacturers of asbestos products, distributors of asbestos products, insurance companies, doctors, suppliers of raw asbestos fibers, trade associations, trade unions, and the United States of America.
(b) The plaintiffs are not a homogeneous group. They include insulation workers involved in the installation or removal of insulation products, workers in factories manufacturing asbestos products, co-workers, members of workers' families, and persons living in the proximity of asbestos manufacturing facilities.

(4) Although a common thread among these actions is exposure to some type of asbestos or asbestos product, the circumstances of exposure are predominantly individual to each action. The variables include the following:

(a) type of vocational exposure (e. g.— miner, transporter, factory worker, or tradesman);
(b) products to which exposed;
(c) conditions of exposure;
(d) duration and intensity of exposure;
(e) safety precautions taken by the worker;
(f) medical, personal, employment, and family history of the worker over the long periods of exposure involved (up to 50 years).

Regarding the factory workers and tradesmen, the two basic types of vocational exposure involved, the exposure of factory workers was to 100% raw asbestos, while the exposure of tradesmen was to products which generally contain about 15% asbestos.

(5) The question of causation is an individual issue. Several different types of disorders are alleged, including asbestosis, lung cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma, mesothelioma of the lining of the stomach or gastric...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Amchem Products Inc., v. Windsor
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 25 juin 1997
    ...orders, the MDL Panel had previously denied other asbestos-case transfer requests. See In re Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation Material Products Liability Litigation, 431 F.Supp. 906, 910 (JPML 1977); In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. II), MDL-416 (JPML Mar. 13, 1980) (unpubl......
  • Central Wesleyan College v. W.R. Grace & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 24 septembre 1993
    ..."threatens the administration of justice" and "requires a new, streamlined approach") with In re Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation Material Prod.Liab.Litig., 431 F.Supp. 906, 910 (J.P.M.L.1977) (not consolidating 103 actions because of the belief that "factual questions unique to each action......
  • Application of American Tobacco Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 21 juillet 1989
    ...through multidistrict litigation, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 (1982); see generally In re Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation Material Products Liability Litigation, 431 F.Supp. 906, 910 (J.P.M.L.1977) (per curiam) (declining to transfer to one district 103 pending actions involving asbestos expos......
  • In re UNR Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 25 mars 1983
    ...purpose of coordinating pretrial proceedings. The Panel found that it should not be done. In Re Asbestos & Asbestos Insulation Material, 431 F.Supp. 906 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1977) (per curiam). It seems clear that if the asbestos cases brought by people who are at present suffering from diseas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • 1 janvier 2013
    ...173 Arthur Andersen v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), 114 Asbestos & Asbestos Insulation Material Prods. Liab. Litig., In re , 431 F. Supp. 906 (J.P.M.L. 1977), 169 Aspartame Antitrust Litig., In re , 2011 WL 4793239 (E.D. Pa. 2011), 118, 119 ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., In re , 233 F.R.D......
  • Strategic Considerations For Multidistrict Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • 1 janvier 2013
    ...Patent Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2005); In re Asbestos & Asbestos Insulation Material Prods. Liab. Litig., 431 F. Supp. 906 (J.P.M.L. 1977) (“[V]irtually unanimous opposition of the parties to transfer, though a very persuasive factor . . . is not by itself determinative.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT