Reed v. Reichhold Liquidation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:18CV720 |
| Parties | MARION REED, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of BARBARA C. REED, JENNIFER EDSON, and RANDY REED, Plaintiffs, v. REICHHOLD LIQUIDATION, INC., d/b/a Liquidating Reichhold, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
Presently before this court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Reichhold Liquidation, Inc., ("Defendant"), (Doc. 123), to which Plaintiffs have responded, (Doc. 125), and Defendant has replied, (Doc. 126). This motion is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, this court will deny Defendant's motion.
Plaintiff Marion Reed is a resident of Iowa who appears in his individual capacity and as the Administrator of the Estate of Barbara C. Reed. Mr. Reed was married to Barbara Reed ("Mrs. Reed") for forty-one years, until the time of her death. (Id.) Plaintiff Jennifer Edson is the adult daughter of Barbara and Marion Reed and a resident of Iowa. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Randy Reed is the adult son of Barbara and Marion Reed and a resident of Florida. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Prior to its bankruptcy in 2014, Defendant was a corporation formed in the state of Delaware. (Def.'s Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s Br.") (Doc. 124) at 4.)1 Prior to 2014, its headquarters was at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and its principal place of business was in North Carolina. (Id.) In May 2016, Defendant emerged from Bankruptcy as a corporation called Liquidating Reichhold, Inc. (Id.) Defendant is now incorporated in the state of Delaware. (Id.)
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this court on August 20, 2018. (Compl. (Doc. 1).) Defendant filed an Answer on November 28, 2018. (Doc. 8.)
On February 12, 2020, the court granted Defendant's Motion in Limine to apply Iowa substantive law at trial and during anyremaining procedural disputes. (Doc. 53.) Following discovery, Defendant filed an Amended Answer on May 19, 2020. (Doc. 107.)
On October 19, 2020, this court held a motion hearing regarding Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert, Susan Raterman, (Doc. 54), following which Defendant's motion was denied without prejudice, subject to further review at trial. (Tr. of Mot. Hr'g (Doc. 131).) Following the hearing, this court also permitted Defendant to file a brief motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying their Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.) On December 3, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File, (Doc. 121), which this court granted, (Doc. 122).
On December 17, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Doc. 123), and accompanying brief, (Doc. 124). Plaintiffs replied on January 19, 2021, (Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ( ) (Doc. 125), and Defendant replied on February 2, 2021, (Def.'s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s Reply") (Doc. 126)).
This matter is set for a bench trial regarding the issue of spoliation of evidence on June 1, 2021, and for a jury trial as to the remaining issues in September 2021. (Minute Entry 02/23/2021.)
Any material factual disputes will be specifically addressed in the relevant analysis. The facts described in this summary are taken in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Additional facts relevant to this order will be addressed in the analysis.
Mrs. Reed worked for the Square D manufacturing plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in a variety of jobs from March 1972 to August 1976. (Def.'s Br. (Doc. 124 at 2-3.) Mrs. Reed died on August 21, 2017, from mesothelioma. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Reed developed mesothelioma after working with and around asbestos-containing phenolic molding compounds at the Square D manufacturing plant. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant supplied the asbestos-containing molding compounds to Square D which led to Mrs. Reed's illness. (See Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 55-65.)
Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled tojudgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)2; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). This court's summary judgment inquiry is whether the evidence "is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325. If the "moving party discharges its burden . . . , the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." McLean v. Patten Cmtys., Inc., 332 F.3d 714, 718-19 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586-87). Summary judgment should be granted "unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party on the evidence presented." Id. at 719 (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 247-48).
When considering a motion for summary judgment, courts must Wilson v. Prince George's Cnty., 893 F.3d 213, 218-19 (4th Cir. 2018).
"Under the familiar Erie doctrine, [courts] apply state substantive law and federal procedural law when reviewing state-law claims." Kerr v. Marshall Univ. Bd. of Governors, 824 F.3d 62, 74 (4th Cir. 2016); see also Fitzgerald v. Manning, 679 F.2d 341, 346 (4th Cir. 1982) (). This court will apply Iowa substantive law in this matter. (See Doc. 53.)
Defendant moves for summary judgment as to all of "Plaintiffs' claims against Reichhold Liquidation, Inc." (Doc. 123 at 2.)3 Defendant argues that the evidence establishes that Square D's conduct was the sole proximate cause of Mrs. Reed's injuries, and accordingly, Defendant is insulated from any liability under Iowa law pursuant to the "sole cause of the employer" defense, (Def.'s Br. (Doc. 124) at 5), as Square Dfailed "to institute asbestos safety precautions, including respiratory protection," (id. at 7).
In their response, Plaintiffs argue that this court should not grant summary judgment because the issue of sole proximate cause should be left to the jury to decide, (Pls.' Resp. (Doc. 125) at 9-12), evidence of Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") violations are not relevant to the sole proximate cause defense, (id. at 12-13), and Reichhold was at fault in a way that enhanced and contributed to the danger to Mrs. Reed such that Square D could not have been the sole proximate cause of Mrs. Reed's injury, (id. at 13-15).
In their Reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that Mrs. Reed worked with or around any Reichhold molding compounds that contained asbestos, and thus, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that a cause other than Reichhold's products caused Mrs. Reed's death.4 (Def.'s Reply (Doc. 126 at 2-5.)
"The sole proximate cause defense has long been recognized in Iowa." Sponsler v. Clarke Elec. Coop., Inc., 329 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Iowa 1983) (citing Johnson v. McVicker, 216 Iowa 654, 658, 247 N.W. 488, 490 (1933).) The defense has historically been a complete bar to liability, with a defendant manufacturer or supplier in a product liability matter asserting that the plaintiff's employer or another third party was the sole proximate cause of an injured plaintiff's damages, see Chumbley v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 521 N.W.2d 192, 194 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993); Johnson v. Interstate Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 310, 323-24 (Iowa 1992), "even when a third party alleged to be responsible for the injury is not joined in the case," Sponsler, 329 N.W.2d at 665. Historically, "[t]he rule has been applied in negligence, strict-liability, and breach-of-warranty cases . . . ." Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Thermogas Co., 620 N.W.2d 819, 824 (Iowa 2000).
Although a plaintiff ordinarily "has the burden to prove the requisite causal connections between the defendant's allegednegligence and the injury," defendants have the burden of proof to establish the elements of the defense, Chumbley, 521 N.W.2d at 194 (citing Sponsler, 329 N.W.2d at 665); those elements require proof that (1) "[t]he conduct of plaintiff's employer occurred" and (2) that "[t]he conduct of plaintiff's employer was the only proximate cause of plaintiff's damages," id. at 193; see also Iowa Civil Jury Instructions § 700.5, https://cdn.ymaws.com/sites/www.iowabar.org/resource/resmgr/files/Linked_12-17_Civil_Jury_Inst.pdf (last visited Apr. 12, 2021).
Prior to 2009, Iowa courts followed the approach advocated by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, in which "a defendant's conduct [was] a legal or proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages" if "(a) his conduct [was] a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, and (b) there [was] no rule of law relieving the actor from liability." Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829, 836 (Iowa 2009).
In 2009, in Thompson v. Kaczinski, the Iowa Supreme Court announced that it would no longer use the formulation of legal or proximate cause supplied by the Restatement (Second) of Torts and instead, was adopting that of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Id. at 837-39. The Iowa Supreme Court recognized that theterm "proximate cause" had "been the source of...
To continue reading
Request your trial