Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09–02163.,Nos. 09–02317,MDL No. 875.Civil Action Nos. 09–67099,09–06698.,09–93726–File,09–91449.,09–91848,s. 09–02317,09–02163. |
| Citation | 799 F.Supp.2d 455,2012 A.M.C. 509 |
| Parties | Lois Jean CONNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants.James H. Prange, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al., Defendants.James W. Stone, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al., Defendants.Tina M. Willis, Plaintiff, v. BW IP International, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David Bricker, Michael L. Armitage, Michael B. Gurien, Cindy Jean Young, Waters Kraus & Paul, El Segundo, CA, Duncan Lemmon, Connor & Bishop, San Francisco, CA, Francis C. Schenck, Law Office of F.C. Schenck, Atlanta, GA, Banafsheh E. Saifollahi, Jacqueline G. Badders, Waters & Kraus LLP, Baltimore, MD, Charles S. Siegel, Waters & Kraus LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Peter A. Santos, Nexsen Pruet PLLC, Charlotte, NC, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle Decker Amaro, Long Beach, CA, Sonja E. Blomquist, Vernice T. Louie, Low, Ball & Lynch, Thomas J. Moses, Brydon Hugo & Parker, Charles S. Bishop, Michael Karatov, Connor & Bishop, Robert L. Nelder, Robert M. Hamblett, Hassard Bonnington, San Francisco, CA, Dennis M. Young, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Oakland, CA, J. Scott Wood, Foley & Mansfield, Seattle, WA, John C. McMeekin, Rawle & Henderson, Cy Goldberg, Jason Wayne Rubin, Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, PC, John A. Turlik, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Dennis J. Valenza, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Kevin Douglas Jamison, David G. Larmore, Sandra L. Gryder, Timothy C. Pieper, Pond North LLP, Craig R. Maki, Karen L. Finateri Silbiger, Selman Breitman LLP, Corinne Deveza Orquiola, Elan N. Stone, John A. Graniez, Paul A. Johnson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP, Paul Christopher White, II, Dehay & Elliston LLP, Edward Richard Ulloa, Julia A. Gowin, Robert E. Thackston, Hawkins, Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, Patricia Daffodil Tyminski, Tricia A. Takagi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Michael J. Zukowski, K&L Gates, Pittsburgh, PA, Dennis E. Vega, Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold, Newark, NJ, Henry David Rome, Howard Rome Marin Ridley LLP, Redwood City, CA, Constance Fraenkel, Becherer Kannett Schweitzer, Emeryville, CA, Edward M. Slaughter, Hawkins Parnell & Thackston, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Lois Jean Conner, Jane Prange, James W. Stone, and Tina M. Willis (“Plaintiffs”), whose respective cases have been consolidated as part of the MDL–875 litigation, bring these asbestos products liability cases against several defendants. Plaintiffs' complaints all plead asbestos-related injuries stemming from exposure to asbestos-containing products during service with the United States Navy (“Navy”). Like many of the cases pending in this Court's MDL–875 docket arising from such exposure, the allegations concerning where and how the injuries were sustained are varied; some of the plaintiffs allege exposure whilst aboard Navy ships at sea while others emphasize exposure stemming from work in Navy shipyards.
The defendants, citing a number of bases for disposing of Plaintiffs' cases without trial, urge that summary judgment should be granted in their favor. 1 Plaintiffs disagree. Central to disposition of the pending motions is another issue that the parties vigorously dispute: what law applies in the first instance. The defendants ask the Court to apply maritime law in resolving the pending motions while Plaintiffs contend that maritime law is inapplicable.2 Given the complexity and importance of the maritime law question to these and other cases in MDL–875, the Court will address it first in this memorandum, leaving the resolution of the other issues raised in the summary judgment motions to be addressed separately under the rubric outlined herein.3
As set forth below, the Court concludes that the maritime jurisdiction test requires the Court to apply maritime law to those claims involving plaintiffs who were sea-based Navy workers where the allegedly defective product was produced for use on a vessel.4 By contrast, maritime law does not govern when the asbestos claims asserted stem from predominantly land-based Navy work even if the allegedly defective product was produced for use on a vessel. Applying this standard, the Court finds that maritime law governs the disputes in Conner, Prange, and Stone inasmuch as the injured parties in those cases were Navy sailors who spent the bulk of their time sailing on navigable waters. Because the injured party in Willis was a land-based Navy shipyard worker, the Court finds that maritime law does not apply and that Willis is therefore subject to resolution under state law.
Thus, the motions for summary judgment in Conner, Prange and Stone will be granted to the extent that they seek a ruling that maritime law applies while the motions for summary judgment seeking such a ruling in Willis will be denied.5
II. BACKGROUNDA. Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.
Plaintiff Jean Conner brings her action as successor-in-interest to Robert Conner, who passed away after contracting mesothelioma. Conner alleges that Mr. Conner's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos while serving as a machinist's mate aboard various Navy ships from 1962 to 1971. (Pl.'s Resp. in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., doc. no. 188, at 2.) In particular, it is Conner's position that Mr. Conner was exposed to asbestos aboard the USS Yorktown where he worked in the engine room, the auxiliary room, and the fire room. ( See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., doc. no. 168, Ex. B, at 18–20.) In this capacity, Mr. Conner “maintain[ed] the equipment,” “repair[ed] pumps,” “remove [d] any gaskets that needed to be removed and replaced” and “fix[ed] ... any valves that were leaking from the valve stems.” ( Id. at 19.) During Mr. Conner's service aboard the USS Yorktown, the ship routinely sailed international waters before returning to dock in the Subic Bay in the Philippines. ( Id. at 29–30.)
B. Prange v. Alfa Laval, Inc.
Plaintiff Jane Prange alleges that James H. Prange contracted mesothelioma, and died, as a result of exposure to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1965 to 1969. From 1965 to 1968, Mr. Prange served aboard the USS Pollux, which sailed international waters and transported items to other vessels at sea. ( See Pl.'s Resp. in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., doc. no. 212, Ex. A, at 33–34.) Whilst aboard the USS Pollux, Mr. Prange served in the fire room, where he was responsible for cleaning and maintaining the boilers in addition to the machinery associated with running the boiler aboard the ship. ( See id. at 43–44.) After serving on the USS Pollux, Mr. Prange spent one year aboard the USS Delta as a boiler tender. ( See id. at 37.) The USS Delta sailed between various ports, during which time Mr. Prange would board and conduct repairs of other vessels' boilers and associated equipment. ( See id.)
C. Stone v. Alfa Laval, Inc.
Plaintiffs James and Elsie Stone allege that Mr. Stone's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products when he served as a Navy boiler tender from 1959 to 1976. ( See Pl.'s Resp. in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., doc. no. 217, at 3.) Mr. Stone served aboard the USS Boxer and the USS Casa Grande. During his period of active Navy service on the USS Boxer, Mr. Stone was responsible for “maintaining the main propulsion generators and associated equipment located in the machinery spaces of the ship.” ( Id.) In addition, Mr. Stone “worked on the piping, valves and pumps, turbines, and reduction gear associated with th[e] generators.” ( Id. at 4.)
D. Willis v. BW IP International, Inc.
Plaintiff Tina Willis, individually and as representative of Hiram Peavy's estate, seeks redress for Peavy's ultimately fatal mesothelioma. Willis alleges that Peavy's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sebright v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...The location test is satisfied if some of the alleged asbestos exposure occurred on navigable waters. See Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 2d 455, 467 (E.D. Pa. 2011). This requirement is met here because at least some of the alleged exposure to asbestos products occurred while Sebr......
-
Mack v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...358, 362 (E.D.Pa.2009) (Robreno, J.). This Court has previously set forth guidance on this issue. See Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 799 F.Supp.2d 455 (E.D.Pa.2011) (Robreno, J.). In order for maritime law to apply, a plaintiff's exposure underlying a product liability claim must meet both a l......
-
Andrews v. John Crane, Inc.
...that appellants recognized during the litigation in the trial court.2 Gen. Chem. Corp. , 852 S.W.2d at 919. Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. , 799 F.Supp.2d 455, 458 (E.D. Pa. 2011), addresses cases with similar facts to this appeal. There, the district court was called upon to determine the appl......
-
Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc.
...example, the Corleys’ main argument is that the intervening decision of a district court in an unrelated suit, Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. , 799 F. Supp. 2d 455 (E.D. Pa. 2011), changed the law and allowed them to bring a maritime claim. But, of course, decisions of district courts "have no ......