Oneal v. Crane Co. et al
Filing
238
ORDER granting 153 Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 154 Defendant Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 163 Request for Hearing on Motions for S ummary Judgment; denying as moot 199 Defendant Foster Wheeler's Motion in Limine, 200 Motion in Limine, and 201 Motion in Limine; granting 178 Defendant Crane Co.'s Request for Hearing on Motion to Preclude or Limit Causation Testimony. Calendar Call RESET for 10/29/2014 at 3:30 PM in Fort Lauderdale Division before Judge James I. Cohn. See Order for details. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 10/19/2014. (sry)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-61510-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
JAMES A. ONEAL and LINDA ONEAL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 153] and Defendant Crane Co.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 154] (together, “Motions”). The Court has carefully
reviewed the Motions and all related filings and is otherwise advised in the premises.1
I.
Background
A.
Material Facts2
1
Also pending are several Motions in Limine, filed by Defendants Crane Co.
(“Crane”) and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (“Foster Wheeler”), regarding the
admission of certain evidence and arguments at trial. See DE 190–193, 199–204, 206.
As discussed further herein, the Court concludes that Foster Wheeler’s Motion for
Summary Judgment should be granted. Thus, the Motions in Limine filed solely by
Foster Wheeler will be denied as moot. See DE 199–201. And though Plaintiffs and
Crane have requested a hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment, see DE 163,
172, the Court finds that the determinative facts and legal issues are fully developed in
the written record. Accordingly, the requests for hearing will be denied.
2
In support of their Responses to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment,
Plaintiffs have filed two “Statements of Disputed Facts.” DE 158 at 1; DE 160 at 1.
Each Statement totals one page and lumps together, in a single paragraph, Plaintiffs’
“Responses” to Defendants’ Statements of Facts. See DE 158 at 1 (“Response to
Statement Nos. 1–17” of Crane); DE 160 at 1 (“Response to Statement Nos. 1–41” of
Foster Wheeler); see also S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(a) (“Statements of material facts
Plaintiff James A. Oneal served in the United States Navy for about twenty years
between June 7, 1958, and March 30, 1980. See DE 152 (Statement of Material Facts
in Supp. of Def. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.’s Mot. for Summ. J.) at 1-8. During his
naval career, Oneal worked aboard several different vessels, mainly in the boiler rooms
(or “fire” rooms). See id.; DE 154 at 3-4, ¶ 7 (Statement of Undisputed Facts Contained
in Def. Crane Co.’s Mot. for Summ. J.). His work mainly involved servicing equipment
associated with the boilers, including steam pipes, valves, gaskets, pumps, and doors.
See DE 152 at 1-8. Much of this work included removing and replacing packing or
insulation materials that contained asbestos. See id. Further, while serving on repair
ships, Oneal boarded other ships to work on their boilers. See id. at 6, ¶¶ 22-24; id. at
7-8, ¶¶ 30-32. Later in his career, Oneal also supervised other sailors performing these
tasks, coordinated repair projects, and conducted quality-control inspections of boilers.
See id. at 7, ¶ 58; id. at 8, ¶¶ 31, 34.
1.
Foster Wheeler Products
At his deposition, Oneal testified that he worked aboard several ships that used
boilers manufactured by Defendant Foster Wheeler:
!
USS Platte from about 1960 to 1961 (see DE 152 at 2-3, ¶¶ 5-7);
!
USS Francis Marion from 1970 to 1972 (see id. at 5, ¶¶ 17-18);
submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment shall correspond with the
order and with the paragraph numbering scheme used by the movant[.]”). Plaintiffs’
Statements also fail to cite any specific record evidence; they instead rely on identical
boilerplate objections that are essentially meaningless. See DE 158 at 1; DE 160 at 1;
see also S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(a)(2) (requiring that statements of material facts opposing
summary judgment be “supported by specific references to pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits on file with the Court”). Thus, the
material facts recited by Defendants and supported by the record are deemed admitted.
See S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(b).
2
!
unidentified vessels that Oneal helped tend while serving on a
repair ship (USS Prairie) from 1972 to 1974 (see id. at 6, ¶¶ 22-24);
!
various ships at the Navy Development and Training Center from
January 1974 to April 1976 (see id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 25-26);
!
USS Vega from April 1976 to April 1977 (see id. at 7, ¶¶ 27-29);
and
!
USS Jason, as well as unidentified ships that the Jason serviced,
from May 1977 to March 1979 (see id. at 7-8, ¶¶ 30-32).
Oneal, however, did not serve on any of these vessels when they were first launched.
All the ships had been in service for years before he worked on them. See DE 152-1
(Videotaped Dep. of James A. Oneal, Vol. I) at 70-71; see also DE 152-5 (Dep. of
Lawrence Stilwell Betts, MD, Ex. 1) at 161-62.
When the ships were constructed, Foster Wheeler delivered its boilers to naval
shipbuilders without any exterior thermal insulation. See DE 152 at 9, ¶ 37. The
shipbuilders, not Foster Wheeler, supplied and installed the external insulation on the
boilers in accordance with naval military and contract specifications. See id. Also, the
fire bricks and insulating bricks inside the boilers’ furnaces did not contain asbestos.
See id. And no asbestos was connected with the bare metal tubes inside the Foster
Wheeler boilers on any of the vessels Oneal served aboard. See id. Nor did Foster
Wheeler supply any spare or replacement insulation, fire brick, or insulating brick for
any of the ships on which Oneal worked. See id.
Some of the ships Oneal served aboard had Foster Wheeler boilers that
contained internal asbestos-containing gaskets and packing when the ships were built.
See DE 152 at 9-10, ¶ 39. But those original parts had been replaced long before
Oneal came onboard the ships. See id. at 10, ¶ 39. Any spare parts furnished by
3
Foster Wheeler during the shipyard’s initial installation of the boilers would have been
consumed within the first year or two of the ships’ operation. See id.
For eight of the nine ships Oneal worked on during his career, Foster Wheeler
did not supply any asbestos-containing replacement parts after the installation of the
boilers and before or during Oneal’s service. See DE 152 at 10, ¶ 40. On one ship,
USS McKean, Foster Wheeler did provide asbestos-containing copper-jacketed
gaskets for the steam drum at least five years before Oneal boarded the ship. See id.;
DE 154 at 3, ¶ 7. Oneal, though, did not testify that he or anyone else worked on the
steam drum. See DE 152 at 10, ¶ 40. In any event, these gaskets would have been
consumed within two years after being supplied to the Navy, well before Oneal boarded
the McKean. See id.3
2.
Crane Products
The only products manufactured or supplied by Defendant Crane that Oneal
recalls working with or around are Crane valves and “Cranite” brand gaskets. See DE
154 at 3, ¶ 4. Oneal testified that he worked on valves throughout his naval career,
including replacing packing and flange gaskets and installing new valves. See id. at 3,
¶ 5. He identified three brands of valves, Crane among them. See id. Yet when asked
about any distinguishing features of Crane valves, Oneal stated, “I can’t — I can’t
remember. There was — a lot of them — a lot of valves . . . . But I can’t remember
whether it’s Crane or some other one.” DE 152-2 (Videotaped Dep. of James A. Oneal,
Vol. II) at 147.
3
Oneal had no knowledge about the maintenance or repair history of any of the
ships he served on, including when and how many times the consumable asbestos was
replaced before he came aboard the ships. See DE 152 at 10, ¶ 41.
4
Assuming that Oneal worked on Crane valves, the only potential asbestoscontaining materials he would have encountered were packing and gasket sealing
products. See DE 154 at 3, ¶ 6. When Crane delivered certain valves to the Navy,
they may have had a gasket or piece of packing installed in them. See id. at 4, ¶ 7.
Though some of these internal parts might have contained asbestos, the parts wore out
over time and had to be replaced. See id. And there is no evidence that these Crane
products remained in any valves when Oneal worked on them. See id.; see also id. at
5, ¶ 11 (discussing testimony of Crane’s expert naval historian that none of Crane’s
original packing or gasket materials would have remained when Oneal served aboard
the ships). In this regard, Oneal could not identify Crane as having made or supplied
any packing or gaskets that he may have removed from a Crane valve. See DE 154 at
4, ¶ 7.
Oneal specifically identified “Cranite” as a sheet gasket material he worked with
in the Navy. See DE 152-1 at 25, 29-30; DE 152-2 at 140. According to Oneal, he
changed the Cranite material “all the time.” DE 152-1 at 29. As a result of this work,
Oneal claims, “there was dust flying everywhere,” and he breathed in that dust. Id.
Oneal recalls working with Cranite on every ship he served aboard; he “was always
there with it.” DE 152-2 at 165.
Crane, by contrast, offers testimony that it was never a qualified supplier of
replacement sheet gaskets to the Navy. See DE 154 at 5, ¶ 9. Crane’s expert naval
historian, Thomas F. McCaffery, declares that “Crane Co. was not and never was an
approved manufacturer or supplier of thermal insulation, packing or gasket products
that were used by the U.S. Navy either in or on the machinery or valves they sold to the
U.S. Navy.” DE 154-4 at 10. McCaffery further explains that “if compressed asbestos
5
sheet was required by the valve specification, the only products that could have been
used for gaskets in these valves were those listed on the Qualified Product List for the
Specification.” Id. at 9; see also DE 154-5 (Report of Rear Admiral (Ret.) David P.
Sargent, Jr.) at 25-26 (describing rigorous approval process for materials on Qualified
Product List).
Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Captain William A. Lowell, testified that it was at least
possible for materials not on the Qualified Product List to end up on a Navy ship.
See DE 159-2 (Dep. of Captain William A. Lowell) at 22, p. 80. But Lowell added that if
a supplier “got caught” providing such materials, “there would be a hell of a problem.”
Id. More, Lowell confirmed that during his own naval career, he had no recollection of
seeing Cranite gaskets. See id. at 26, p.137.4
B.
Procedural History
In 2010, Oneal was diagnosed with mesothelioma.5 See DE 152 at 9, ¶ 26.
Oneal and his wife Linda (“Plaintiffs”) filed this case in state court on May 29, 2013.
See DE 3-1 (Crane Co.’s Notice of Removal) at 2, ¶ 1. On July 12, 2013, Crane
removed the action to this Court based on a statute allowing review of claims against
persons acting at the direction of federal officers. See DE 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
Foster Wheeler later joined in Crane’s Notice of Removal. See DE 42.
4
Oneal also testified that during his service in the Navy, he worked with “Crane”
rope packing material in connection with valves and boilers. See DE 154 at 6, ¶ 15.
It is undisputed, however, that Crane never manufactured or supplied this material.
See id. The rope packing was made by another firm—Crane Packing Company—that
has no relation to Crane Co. See id. at 7, ¶ 15.
5
Mesothelioma is “a fatal cancer of the lining of the lung caused by asbestos
exposure.” Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2012).
6
Plaintiffs’ current Amended Complaint asserts claims against Crane, Foster
Wheeler, and several other makers of asbestos-containing products that Oneal was
allegedly exposed to while working in the Navy.6 See DE 1-2. Plaintiffs contend that
Oneal’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to “the asbestos or asbestoscontaining products mined, milled, manufactured, sold, supplied and/or distributed by
the Defendants.” Id. at 2, ¶ 4. The Amended Complaint pleads three counts:
negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium (Linda Oneal only). See id. at 10-17.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and
other economic and non-economic injuries. See id. at 18-19.
In their present Motions, Foster Wheeler and Crane (hereafter, “Defendants”)
argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis that Oneal was never
exposed to any asbestos-containing materials produced or supplied by Defendants.
See DE 153 at 1-2; DE 154 at 1-2. Plaintiffs have filed Responses opposing the
Motions, and Defendants have submitted Replies. See DE 159, 161, 171, 173. The
parties have also filed extensive documentary evidence in support of their arguments.
II.
Discussion
A.
Motions for Summary Judgment
1.
Summary Judgment Standards
Summary judgment may be granted “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party “always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying
6
Most, but not all, Defendants besides Crane and Foster Wheeler have been
voluntarily dismissed from the case. See DE 229 (Order Regarding Settling Defs.).
7
those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To satisfy
this burden, the movant must demonstrate that “there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325.
If the movant makes this initial showing, the burden of production shifts, and the
non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The non-moving party “may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials in its pleadings” but instead must present “specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576-77 (11th
Cir. 1990). “If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly
address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . .
grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the facts
considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3).
Essentially, so long as the non-moving party has had an ample opportunity to
conduct discovery, it must come forward with affirmative evidence to support its claim.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). “A mere ‘scintilla’ of
evidence supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be enough
of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.” Walker, 911 F.2d at
1577. If the evidence advanced by the non-moving party “is merely colorable, or is not
significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at
249-50 (citations omitted).
A court’s function at the summary-judgment stage is not to “weigh the evidence
and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue
8
for trial.” Id. at 249. In so doing, the court must view the facts in the light most
favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.
See Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763 (11th Cir. 2006). The court also must discern
what issues are material: “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.
Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson,
477 U.S. at 248.
2.
Choice of Law
Here, the Court must consider whether Oneal’s claims are governed by federal
admiralty law or by state law. In general, admiralty law applies to a tort action when the
alleged tort occurred on navigable waters and the claimed injury and conduct were
significantly related to traditional maritime activities. See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v.
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534 (1995) (discussing “location” and
“connection” tests for admiralty jurisdiction). In this case, Oneal’s alleged asbestos
exposure occurred almost entirely at sea during his service aboard naval vessels.
The Court therefore concludes that federal admiralty law applies to Plaintiffs’ claims.
See Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1367-68 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
(holding that plaintiff’s claimed exposure to defendants’ asbestos products aboard naval
vessel warranted application of maritime law). Still, “when neither statutory nor judicially
created maritime principles provide an answer to a specific legal question, courts may
apply state law provided that the application of state law does not frustrate national
interests in having uniformity in admiralty law.” Coastal Fuels Mktg., Inc. v. Fla. Express
Shipping Co., 207 F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Therefore, the Court
will also consider the substantive law of Florida—the only state having any apparent
9
connection with the case—to the extent it is consistent with maritime law. See Faddish,
881 F. Supp. 2d at 1368.
3.
Foster Wheeler’s Motion
Based on the material facts established in Part I.A.1 above, no substantial
evidence demonstrates that Oneal was exposed to Foster Wheeler asbestos products
on any Navy ship he served aboard. Foster Wheeler supplied its boilers to naval
shipbuilders with no exterior insulation, and most of the internal components lacked
any asbestos. Although Foster Wheeler originally supplied some boilers with asbestoscontaining gaskets and packing, those parts had been consumed and replaced long
before Oneal worked on the ships. Nor does any evidence show that Foster Wheeler
supplied replacement asbestos products to which Oneal could have been exposed.
Accordingly, the record does not present a triable issue of fact about whether Oneal
was exposed to asbestos produced or supplied by Foster Wheeler.
Plaintiffs argue that Foster Wheeler may still be held liable because it could have
foreseen that the Navy would, or might, use asbestos products in Foster Wheeler’s
boilers. In this respect, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should not apply the so-called
“bare metal defense”—the rule that a manufacturer of bare metal products cannot be
held responsible for other manufacturers’ asbestos-containing materials used in
connection with the bare metal. See Morgan v. Bill Vann Co., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1358,
1364 (S.D. Ala. 2013). As Judge Hurley explained in Faddish, the bare metal defense
“posits that a manufacturer has no duty to warn about hazards associated with a
product it did not manufacture or distribute.” 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1368. While some
courts have declined to adopt this rule, it nonetheless reflects the clear majority view.
See, e.g., Lindstrom v. A–C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 497 (6th Cir. 2005)
10
(emphasizing that a defendant “cannot be held responsible for asbestos containing
material that . . . was incorporated into its product post-manufacture”); Cabasug v.
Crane Co., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1041 (D. Haw. 2013) (concluding that “under
maritime law, a manufacturer is not liable for replacement parts that it did not place into
the stream of commerce, whether the manufacturer’s product originally contained
asbestos components or was designed to include asbestos components”); Faddish,
881 F. Supp. 2d at 1368 (interpreting Florida law to provide that “a manufacturer’s duty
to warn, whether premised in negligence or strict liability theory, generally does not
extend to hazards arising exclusively from other manufacturer’s products, regardless of
the foreseeability of the combined use and attendant risk”); Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.,
842 F. Supp. 2d 791, 801 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (holding that “under maritime law, a
manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by, and owes no duty to warn of the hazards
inherent in, asbestos products that the manufacturer did not manufacture or distribute”).
This Court likewise is persuaded that the maker of a product that contains no
asbestos may not be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos that others supply or
use in connection with the product. As Judge Hurley aptly observed,
In the products liability arena, the lines of liability are more narrowly
drawn. Regardless of the foreseeability risk, here the duty to act is limited
to entities within a product’s chain of distribution on theory that these are
the entities best motivated and capable of controlling the risk.
Faddish, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1372; see Conner, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 800-01 (“[P]roductsliability theories rely on the principle that a party in the chain of distribution of a
harm-causing product should be liable because that party is in the best position to
absorb the costs of liability into the cost of production[.]” (citing Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 402A, cmt. c (1965))). For these reasons, Plaintiffs cannot hold Foster
11
Wheeler legally responsible for Oneal’s exposure to other manufacturers’ asbestos
products that may have been used in Foster Wheeler’s boilers. The Court will therefore
grant Foster Wheeler’s Motion for Summary Judgment.7
4.
Crane’s Motion
The Court’s analysis involving Foster Wheeler’s boilers applies equally to the
Crane valves that Oneal allegedly serviced aboard naval vessels. As detailed above in
Part I.A.2, even if Oneal can show that he worked on Crane valves, he provides no
substantial evidence that he was exposed to any asbestos-containing products that
Crane made or supplied. Certain valves that Crane delivered to the Navy may have
included gaskets or packing containing asbestos. But as with the similar Foster
Wheeler products, these original parts wore out and were replaced before Oneal was
ever near the valves. And Oneal has not identified Crane as the maker or supplier of
the parts. More, the bare metal defense forecloses Plaintiffs’ argument that Crane is
liable because other companies provided asbestos-containing materials for the valves.8
Crane’s Motion for Summary Judgment will therefore be granted with respect to Oneal’s
alleged exposure to asbestos from Crane valves.
The Court reaches a different conclusion, however, regarding the Cranite sheet
gasket material. Oneal gave detailed testimony about his alleged work with Cranite:
!
“[T]he Crane packing is called Cranite. We used to remember that
because you’d think of Superman and kryptonite. And kryptonite
was supposed to be strong enough to kill Superman, so this
Cranite was supposed to stop the steam coming out of it. So we
remembered it that way.” (DE 152-1 at 25);
7
The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ other arguments opposing Foster
Wheeler’s Motion, but finds that they lack merit and do not warrant separate discussion.
8
Again, to the extent Plaintiffs argue that the bare metal defense is inapplicable
here, the Court finds those arguments unavailing.
12
!
“[T]hat Cranite gasket was — it come in sheets like — and you — if
you have to replace a gasket in a steam line — of course, you
didn’t have the steam in the line. You had to wait until the steam
was out. And you would take it apart, and you scraped the old
gasket off. And then you put this gasket material up against the
flange. And you take a ball pein hammer and cut it out. And then
where all your bolt holes go through, you knock it out. And then
where the inside of the pipe, you knock that part out, so . . . And
then there was dust flying everywhere then. (Id. at 29);
!
Oneal “breathe[d] that dust,” and “[w]e changed [the Cranite] all the
time.” (Id.);
!
The Cranite “was a beige or yellow color, and it had Cranite written
on it in red. We called it the red eye.” (Id. at 30);
!
The name “Cranite” was stamped on the sheet gasket material “in
rows down it, ‘Cranite, Cranite.’” (DE 152-2 at 140); and
!
There were no ships on which Oneal did not recall working with
Cranite gaskets, and he never stopped “working hands on” with
that material. He “was always there with it.” (Id. at 165)
Crane asks the Court to disregard this testimony, claiming that it is “inherently
incredible” given the other evidence of record. DE 154 at 2. Specifically, Crane
emphasizes the testimony of its naval-history expert that Crane was never a qualified
supplier of replacement sheet gaskets to the Navy, so Cranite could not have been
used on the ships Oneal served aboard. See DE 154 at 5, ¶ 9; DE 154-4 at 9-10.
Certain testimony from Plaintiffs’ own expert likewise casts doubt on whether Cranite
was present on Navy vessels. See DE 159-2 at 22, p. 80; id. at 26, p.137. In the
alternative, Crane asserts that “any exposure to Cranite gaskets is minimal at best and
does not qualify as a substantial contributing cause to the development of Mr. Oneal’s
mesothelioma.” DE 154 at 13.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, however, the record creates
a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Oneal was substantially exposed to
13
Cranite during his naval service. Oneal testified in detail about working closely and
often with Cranite throughout his career. And according to Plaintiffs’ expert, it was at
least possible for non-qualified products (like Cranite apparently was) to end up on a
Navy vessel. See id. at 22, p. 80. The conflicts raised by this evidence must be
resolved by the jury and not by the Court on summary judgment. See Anderson,
477 U.S. at 249. Accordingly, Crane’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied as
it relates to Oneal’s claimed exposure to Cranite sheet gaskets.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[DE 153] is GRANTED;
2.
Defendant Crane Co.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 154] is GRANTED as
it concerns Plaintiff James A. Oneal’s alleged exposure to asbestos from Crane
valves, but is DENIED with respect to Oneal’s claimed exposure to Cranite sheet
gasket material;
3.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Hearing of Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
[DE 163], joined by Defendant Crane Co. [DE 172], is DENIED;
4.
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation’s Motion in Limine to Prohibit Post-Exposure
Evidence to Prove Knowledge or Culpability [DE 199], Motion in Limine
Regarding Duty to Warn [DE 200], and Motion in Limine to Prohibit References
to Its Financial Worth, to Its Resources to Litigate the Case, and to the Size of Its
Defense Team and to Exclude References to Offers of Settlement [DE 201] are
DENIED AS MOOT;
14
5.
As a result of scheduling conflicts, the October 23, 2014, calendar call is RESET
for Wednesday, October 29, 2014, at 3:30 p.m.; and
6.
Defendant Crane Co.’s Request for Hearing [DE 178] on its Motion to Preclude
or Limit Causation Testimony from Plaintiffs’ Medical Causation Witness
Dr. Jerrold Abraham [DE 156] is GRANTED. At the October 29, 2014, calendar
call, the Court will hear oral arguments on that Motion, as well as any arguments
on the remaining Motions in Limine [DE 190–193, 202–204, 206].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 19th day of October, 2014.
Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF
15
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?