Haas v. 3M Co.

• Decision Date: 24 July 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 12-2944 (FLW)
• Parties: SUSAN HAAS, Individually and as Executrix of Carl Brasmer, and Individual Heirs of the Estate of CARL BRASMER, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

SUSAN HAAS, Individually and as Executrix of Carl Brasmer, and Individual
Heirs of the Estate of CARL BRASMER, Plaintiffs,
v.
3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12-2944 (FLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date: July 24, 2014

*NOT FOR PUBLICATION

AMENDED OPINION

WOLFSON, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Susan Haas, individually and as executrix of Carl Brasmer, and individual heirs of the estate of Carl Brasmer ("Plaintiffs")¹ initiated this products liability and wrongful death action against, inter alia, Defendants Boeing Company ("Boeing"), Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ("Goodyear"), and General Electric Company ("GE") (collectively, "Defendants").² The claims in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") arise out of the alleged injuries, and ensuing death, suffered by Decedent Carl Brasmer ("Decedent" or "Brasmer"), which Plaintiffs

Page 2

contend resulted from Brasmer's exposure to Defendants' asbestos-containing products.³ Presently before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by each of the Defendants, except 3M. See supra, Footnote 2. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS these Defendants' motions.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the parties' L. Rule 56.1 Statements of Material Facts, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted; additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

Decedent served in the United States Air Force ("USAF") as an aircraft mechanic from approximately 1969 to 1973. GE Facts, ¶ 1; Boeing Facts, ¶ 3. During this time, Decedent worked or was stationed at several different military bases; first at Lackland Air Force Base ("AFB") in Lackland, Texas, and Homestead AFB in Homestead, Florida, and then at Da Nang AFB in Vietnam, Webb AFB in Texas, Albuquerque AFB in New Mexico, and several other air bases in Thailand. Boeing Facts, ¶ 4. At Homestead AFB, Da Nang AFB, and those airbases in Thailand, Decedent worked as a mechanic with the F-4E Phantom aircraft ("F-4E"), manufactured by Boeing; these F-4E planes were primarily outfitted with a J79 model jet engine that was designed by GE in conjunction with the USAF and United States Navy (the "J79 engine"). Boeing Facts, ¶¶ 5, 16; GE Facts, ¶¶ 2, 4-5. At Webb AFB, Decedent worked with the T-38 Talon aircraft ("T-38"). Boeing Facts, ¶ 6; GE Facts, ¶ 2. At each base, Decedent was assigned to work on a specific, single aircraft; however, if necessary, he would provide assistance on other

Page 3

aircraft of the same model. Boeing Facts, ¶ 7. In particular, when Decedent was stationed at Da Nang AFB and in Thailand, he worked on a F-4E with serial number 69297. Id.

Decedent's primary responsibilities as a mechanic on these planes required him to perform pre- and post-flight inspections, which included checking fuel levels, checking and changing tires, inspecting and replacing landing gear brakes, inspecting and replacing seals and gaskets, and inspecting engine shielding. Id. at ¶ 8. In addition, Decedent was responsible for maintaining the aircraft forms and publications, as well as ground support equipment. Pl. Respon. to Boeing Facts, ¶ 8. While Decedent was in Thailand, he briefly worked under the supervision of Frederick Deaver ("Mr. Deaver"), who held the position of crew chief; Mr. Deaver only interacted with Decedent directly on two occasions—once when Mr. Deaver reprimanded Decedent for incorrectly connecting the brake safety wires on a F-4E, and another time when Decedent caused aircraft fuel from an F-4E to spill onto the tarmac. Id. at ¶ 10; GE Facts, ¶ 9. Mr. Deaver never observed Decedent working on or around the engines of an F-4E; indeed Deaver could not identify any instance in which he observed Decedent come into direct contract with a GE product, or any gaskets or clamps associated with the J79 engine. GE Facts, ¶¶ 11-15.

The F-4E aircraft that Decedent worked on were manufactured by Boeing, in its capacity as a military contractor, and in accordance with detailed specifications required by the USAF. Boeing Facts, ¶¶ 15-16.⁴ Indeed, the USAF asserted extensive control and authority over the specifications of the design and manufacture of the F-4E. Id. at ¶ 18. In that connection, the United States Government mandated the use of asbestos-containing materials in certain areas of

Page 4

the F-4E. Id. at ¶ 20. Specifically, in order to meet the Government's requirements, Boeing was required to use asbestos-containing materials in areas that required high temperature and fluid resistance; failure to adhere to these requirements would render the aircraft nonconforming under the contract and subject to rejection by the Government. Id. at ¶ 21.

In February 2012, Decedent was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, and in April 2012, filed this products liability action against Defendants alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure during his time in the USAF to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or supplied by Defendants. Goodyear Facts, ¶ 1-2; Boeing Facts, ¶ 1; see also Dkt. No. 1-1 (Complaint). During the course of litigating his claims, Decedent was deposed over three days; however, Decedent passed away before his deposition concluded. Goodyear Facts, ¶¶ 4-5; GE Facts, ¶ 3. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed the instant TAC, adding state law wrongful death claims. See Dkt. No. 39 (TAC). The parties have concluded their fact discovery, with no outstanding discovery demands remaining; thus, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are ripe for resolution by this Court.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Courts will enter summary judgment only 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 a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). An issue is "genuine" if supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the non-moving party's favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52. A fact is "material" if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. See id. at 252. In determining

Page 5

whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts "in the light most favorable to the [non-moving] party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

A party moving for summary judgment "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion." Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The nonmoving party then carries the burden to "designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324. Moreover, the non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleading. Id. at 324; Maidenbaum v. Bally's Park Place, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 1254, 1258 (D.N.J. 1994). The non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. A mere "scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

III. DISCUSSION

Boeing has filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs' claims against it are barred under the government contractor defense, as established in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 512 (1988), as well as on the basis that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or supplied by Boeing. GE and Goodyear also have each filed motions for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or supplied by GE or Goodyear. Although there are issues of fact and law common to all three motions, I address each motion separately in the interest of clarity.

Page 6

A. Boeing's Motion for Summary Judgment

Boeing primarily contends that it is immune from state law liability for Plaintiffs' claims because it is entitled to the government contractor defense set forth in Boyle, and that Plaintiffs have failed to challenge the defense by raising any genuine dispute on summary judgment. Additionally, Boeing argues that summary judgment should be granted in its favor because Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Decedent's injuries were caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or supplied by Boeing.

The Boyle defense protects a private government contractor from liability on a state law products liability claim "when (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States." Boyle, 487 U.S. at 512. With respect to the first prong of the defense, although a defendant must show that the United States approved reasonably precise specifications, id., it is necessary only that the government approve, rather than create, the specifications. Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991...