Becnel v. Lamorak Ins. Co.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-14536 |
| Decision Date | 25 August 2022 |
| Parties | JAMES P. BECNEL v. LAMORAK INSURANCE CO., ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
SECTION “B” (5)
Before the Court are several motions filed by defendants who allegedly manufactured, supplied and/or used asbestos containing products in brakes and clutches for vehicles. Plaintiff-decedent James P. Becnel allegedly installed maintained, removed or otherwise worked directly on and around the latter products. Moving defendants here will be collectively referred to as either defendant(s) or movant(s).
Specifically we have defendant BMW of North America, LLC's motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 369), defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc 370), defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 456), plaintiffs' respective oppositions to each motion (Rec. Docs. 511, 513, 512), Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated's oppositions to each motion (Rec. Docs. 518, 508, 528), and filing defendants' replies in support of their respective motions (Rec. Docs. 608, 606, 593).
Also before the Court are several motions in limine filed by defendants Bayer CropScience, Inc. (Rec. Docs. 740, 741, 742), BMW of North America, LLC (Rec. Doc. 735), Honeywell International Inc. (Rec. Doc. 731), Ford Motor Company (Rec. Docs. 722, 723, 716), Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 739), FosterWheeler LLC (Rec. Docs. 693, 726, 730), General Electric Company (Rec. Docs. 702, 705), and ViacomCBS Inc. (Rec. Docs. 727, 729), plaintiffs' respective oppositions to each motion (Rec. Docs. 816, 854, 851, 900, 850), and filing defendants' replies in support of their respective motions (Rec. Docs. 1000, 997, 992, 968, 978, 986, 1006, 1008).
After hearing oral arguments from pertinent parties and due consideration of the law and entire record, and for assigned reasons infra, IT IS ORDERED that:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motions in limine (Rec. Docs. 693, 702, 705, 716, 722, 723, 726, 727, 729, 730, 731, 735, 739, 740, 741, 742) are DENIED, provided causation opinion evidence is limited to cumulative exposure(s) to asbestos, not just “any” exposure.
Facts of this case have been laid out in greater detail in previously issued Orders and Reasons and are adopted by reference herein. See Rec. Docs. 1038, 913.
On April 26, 2022, defendants BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”) and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Volkswagen”) each filed separate motions for summary judgment asserting lack of expert causation evidence. Rec. Docs. 369, 370. Thereafter, defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) quickly followed suit by filing its motion for summary judgment on the same basis. See Rec. Doc. 456. As noted earlier, Honeywell's motion was joined by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), Pneumo Abex, LLC (“Abex”), and Morse TEC LLC (“Morse”). See Rec. Docs. 354, 371, 379-381.
On May 17, 2022, Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (“Avondale”) filed oppositions to each motion. Rec. Docs. 518, 508, 528. On that same date, plaintiffs also filed oppositions to each motion for summary judgment. Rec. Docs. 511, 513, 512. Thereafter, on May 25, 2022, BMW, Volkswagen, and Honeywell (collectively “defendants”) filed replies in support of their respective motion. Rec. Docs. 608, 606, 593.
On June 6, 2022, several defendants filed motions in limine, seeking to exclude and/or limit the testimony of plaintiffs' experts. Rec. Docs. 693, 702, 705, 716, 722, 723, 726, 727, 729, 730, 731, 735, 739, 740, 741, 742. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed oppositions to each motion on June 14, 2022. Rec. Docs. 816, 854, 851, 900, 850. On June 22, 2022, defendants filed replies in support of their motions. Rec. Docs. 1000, 997, 992, 968, 978, 986, 1006, 1008.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). As such, the court should view all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixon Bros. Inc., 453 F.3d 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2006).
When the movant bears the burden of proof, it must “demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact” using competent summary judgment evidence. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. However, “where the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may merely point to an absence of evidence.” Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994). Should the movant meet its burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant, who must show by “competent summary judgment evidence” that there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Lindsey, 16 F.3d at 618. However, “a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” See Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Arcturus Corp., 912 F.3d 786, 792 (5th Cir. 2019).
Avondale contends defendants' motions are premature because they request entry of judgment only if we grant the pending Daubert motions. See Rec. Docs. 508, 518, 528.
Per the scheduling order (Rec. Doc. 188), the parties' deadline for filing case dispositive motions and Daubert motions was on May 11, 2022. However, due to ongoing expert discovery, this Court extended the deadline to file Daubert motions to August 1, 2022. Rec. Doc. 976 (Status Conference Minute Entry). Because the case dispositive motion deadline was not extended, defendants were required to file their motions for summary judgment by that date, even if they had not yet filed their Daubert motions.
Furthermore, this Court has on several occasions evaluated and ruled on the admissibility of expert testimony while simultaneously making a summary judgment determination. See Murphy v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. CV 13-1031, 2022 WL 1460093 (E.D. La. May 9, 2022) (); Schindler v. Dravo Basic Materials Co., Inc., No. CV 17-13013, 2019 WL 446567 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2019), aff'd, 790 Fed.Appx. 621 (5th Cir. 2019) (same); see also McGill v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 830 Fed.Appx. 430 (5th Cir. 2020) (); Hill v. GEO Grp., Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01363, 2021 WL 6053783 (W.D. La. Dec. 21, 2021), appeal dismissed sub nom. Hill v. GEO Grp., No. 22-30046, 2022 WL 2914739 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2022). We find no issue with performing the same concurrent analysis in this matter. Accordingly, the subject motions for summary judgment are not premature.
A qualified expert witness may testify if “(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed.R.Evid. 702. The district court plays an important gatekeeping role by verifying that expert testimony meets this threshold standard of reliability before the jury hears it. See, e.g., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
In this toxic tort case plaintiffs allege Mr. Becnel was exposed to asbestos while working with asbestos-containing products, and that such exposures caused his primary lung cancer. Accordingly, plaintiffs must show general causation-that asbestos can cause lung cancer - and specific causation - that the decedent's exposures caused his lung cancer. See Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007).
General causation is whether a substance can cause a particular injury or condition in the general population, while specific causation is whether a substance caused a particular individual's injury. Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007). Evidence concerning specific causation in toxic tort cases is admissible only as a follow-up to admissible general-causation evidence. Id. Thus, there is a two-step process in examining the admissibility of causation evidence in toxic tort cases. Id. First, the district court must determine whether there is general causation. Id. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial