Devries v. Gen. Elec. Co.
Decision Date | 18 May 2016 |
Docket Number | CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875,E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-00474-ER |
Citation | 188 F.Supp.3d 454 |
Parties | John B. Devries, et al., Plaintiffs, v. General Electric Company, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Robert E. Paul, Paul Reich & Myers, PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Stewart R. Singer, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
This case was removed in January of 2013 from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it became part of the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation (MDL 875). The basis of jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 ).
Plaintiffs allege that John DeVries was exposed to asbestos from various products while serving in the U.S. Navy during the time period 1957 to 1960. After the completion of discovery, numerous defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish causation with respect to any product(s) for which it could be held liable. This Court determined that maritime law was applicable to the claims against each of the product manufacturer Defendants now opposing Plaintiffs' appeal1 and, after applying maritime law (including the so-called "bare metal defense" as applied under maritime law), granted each of these Defendants' motions.
Plaintiffs thereafter appealed, contending that this Court misapplied the maritime law "bare metal defense" and, in particular, that it failed to consider the viability of Plaintiffs' negligence claims. By way of Order dated February 5, 2016 (the "February 5th Order") (ECF No. 368 in D.C. No. 5:13-cv-474), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the case to this MDL Court for explicit consideration and clarification of the issues of whether this MDL Court (1) considered the negligence theory of liability when it granted summary judgment in its entirety to the product manufacturer defendants, (2) concluded that the "bare metal defense" applies to claims sounding in negligence, and (3) considered whether the circumstances of the present case warrant application of the legal rationale by which certain other courts' decisions (identified in the February 5th Order) exempted negligence claims from being barred by the defense. As directed by the February 5th Order, the Court hereby clarifies its application of the so-called "bare metal defense," as recognized by maritime law, to claims brought by Plaintiffs against the appealing product manufacturer Defendants.
By way of the decision in Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F.Supp.2d 791 (E.D.Pa.2012) (Robreno, J.), this MDL Court adopted the so-called "bare metal defense" as applied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in two separate maritime law cases:2 Lindstrom v. A – C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.2005) and Stark v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 21 Fed.Appx. 371 (6th Cir.2001)3 —decisions consistent with, and bolstered by, the then-governing4 decisions on the issue under California and Washington state law. At the time of this MDL Court's decision in Conner, the Sixth Circuit was the only federal appellate court to have considered the so-called "bare metal defense" under maritime law (or any other law) in the context of asbestos litigation. The only two states whose highest courts had considered the issue in the context of asbestos litigation were California (in O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 (2012) ) and Washington (in Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wash.2d 341, 197 P.3d 127 (Wash.2008), and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wash.2d 373, 198 P.3d 493 (Wash.2008) ).5
In deciding to adopt the decisions of the Sixth Circuit, this MDL Court was mindful that—unlike the present case presented by the DeVries Plaintiffs—the bulk of the thousands of asbestos cases pending in the MDL originated in the Sixth Circuit and would be remanded for trial (after completion of the MDL pre-trial process) to a district court within the Sixth Circuit (United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio—the same district in which Lindstrom and Stark were initially decided). , the 6
It is true that, in general, matters of substantive federal law (such as maritime law) are applied by an MDL Court in accordance with the law of the Circuit in which it sits (in the case of this MDL, the law of the Third Circuit). See, e.g., Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants ("The Oil Field Cases"), 673 F.Supp.2d 358, 363 n. 3 (E.D.Pa.2009) (Robreno, J.) (); In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1178 (D.C.Cir.1987) ; Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40–41 (2d Cir.1993) (); In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050, 1055 (8th Cir.1996) ( ); Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir.1994) ; Murphy v. F.D.I.C., 208 F.3d 959, 965–66 (11th Cir.2000) ; see alsoIn re Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation – Taj Mahal Litigation, 7 F.3d 357, 368 n. 8 (3d Cir.1993) ( ); Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121, 1126–27 (7th Cir.1993) ( ); McMasters v. U.S., 260 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir.2001) (same). Importantly, however, the matter of the "bare metal defense" had never been squarely addressed by the Third Circuit in the context of asbestos litigation (or any other type of litigation). Therefore, the matter was one of "first impression" in the Third Circuit, for which there was no binding precedent.
This MDL Court was mindful that applying an interpretation of maritime law on the matter that was inconsistent with that of the Sixth Circuit would give rise to inconsistencies in the handling and outcome of the thousands of cases pending in the MDL, as some cases were being resolved in the MDL Court during the pre-trial phase (by way of summary judgment, settlement, etc.), while, pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and the Supreme Court decision in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998), those continuing on to trial in the transferor court would receive application of maritime law by a trial court located within the Sixth Circuit (which would, presumably, apply its own precedents interpreting maritime law on the matter). In all of its cases, the MDL Court has sought to ensure consistency in the handling of cases. SeeIn re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d at 1175–76 ( ); Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d at 41 ().
Although the present case brought by the DeVries Plaintiffs is not part of the maritime docket of cases ("MARDOC"), the application of federal maritime law therein should be consistent with—and in uniformity with—that applied in the MARDOC cases. See id. In setting forth guidance on this matter, now-Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg wrote:
In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d at 1175–76 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). In considering the adoption of Lindstrom's maritime law "bare metal defense," this MDL Court explained in Conner:
[W]here, as here, a defense arises under federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, the transferee court typically applies the law of the circuit in which it sits, that is, Third...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whelan v. Armstrong Int'l Inc.
...cases considering the scope of a defendant's liability for dangers of asbestos-containing products on ships. See Devries v. GE, 188 F.Supp.3d 454, 462 (E.D. Pa. 2016). That defense declines to recognize, under any theory of liability, a manufacturer's liability for harm caused by any actual......
-
Chesher v. 3M Co., 3:15–cv–02123–DCN
...a number of issues.7 Some courts have debated the scope of the Sixth Circuit's holding in Lindstrom . Compare Devries v. Gen. Elec. Co. , 188 F.Supp.3d 454, 458 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (holding that Lindstrom extends to failure-to-warn claims, and therefore, "maritime law imposes no duty upon a pro......
-
Stevens v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.
...arising from a product (or component part) that a manufacturer defendant did not manufacture or supply." Devries v. Gen. Elec. Co., 188 F. Supp. 3d 454, 459 (E.D. Pa. 2016). This is the so-called "bare metal defense." Id. at 455-56. However, several courts have found an exception to thisdef......
-
The Curious Case of Tort Liability for a Defective Product That the Defendant Did Not Make, Sell, or Distribute.
...Id. (16) Id. See generally Feres v. United States, 71 S. Ct. 153 (1950). (17) Id. (18) Id. (19) DeVries v. General Electric Company, 188 F. Supp. 3d 454 (E.D. Pa. 2016). See generally Mesothelioma.com, www.mesothelioma.com [https://perma.cc/7PGB-WU7M] (last visited Dec. 19, 2022) (MDL 875 i......