Vedros v. Northrop Grumman et al

Filing 309

ORDER granting 204 General Electric Company's Motion for Summary Judgment; FURTHER ORDERED that all of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant General Electric Company are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that the oral ar gument, currently set for Wednesday, March 26, 2014, is CANCELLED with respect to Rec. Doc. 204. FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions pending in the above-captioned matter remain unaffected by this order. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 3/14/14. (sek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VEDROS, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-1198

NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING,
INC., ET AL

SECTION: J

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant General Electric Company ("GE) (Rec. Doc. 204), as well
as Plaintiffs' Opposition (Rec. Doc. 246) and GE's Reply (Rec. Doc.
271). Having considered the motion, the parties’ submissions, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds, for the reasons
expressed below, that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be
GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This action arises from the death of Sally Gros Vedros
("Vedros") due to mesothelioma. Alton Gros, Vedros's father, worked
at Avondale as a welder from 1943 to 1976, and Vedros claims to
have spent many years washing her father's work clothes, which
allegedly resulted in Vedros's secondary exposure to insulation
dust containing asbestos. Vedros also worked at Avondale from 1960
to 1963 in the purchase department, and she claims that she was
directly exposed to asbestos while she worked at Avondale. Before

1

her death, Vedros filed suit against many defendants, including GE,
and

after

Vedros's

death,

her

children

joined

the

suit

as

plaintiffs.
PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs allege that GE manufactured metal turbines that
were used at Avondale and that were specifically used in Lykes
vessels,

upon

which

Vedros's

father

worked.

GE

has

provided

deposition testimony that the turbines provided to Avondale were
bare metal turbines and that any asbestos-containing insulation
used

in

the

turbines

was

installed

after

the

turbines

were

delivered to Avondale. GE contends that it did not manufacture,
sell, supply, or distribute any asbestos-containing insulation to
Avondale, only the metal turbines, and Plaintiffs do not offer
evidence to dispute this. Plaintiffs do not appear to allege that
GE manufactured, sold, supplied, or distributed asbestos-containing
insulation,
sometimes

but

Plaintiffs

present

and

do

allege

observed

that

Avondale

GE

employees

employees

were

installing

asbestos-containing insulation onto or around the turbines, and
that GE employees themselves may have installed some insulation in
the turbines while at Avondale.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
2

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56©);
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.2d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
When assessing whether a dispute as to any material fact exists,
the Court considers "all of the evidence in the record but refrains
from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence."
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d
395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008). The Court will examine the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naquin v. Fluor
Daniel Servs. Corp., 935 F. Supp. 847, 848 (E.D. La. 1996) (citing
United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). While
all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving
party, a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory
allegations or unsubstantiated assertions. Little, 37 F.2d at 1075.
A Court ultimately must be satisfied that "a reasonable jury could
not return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Delta, 530 F.3d at
399.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will
bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party "must come
forward with evidence which would 'entitle it to a directed verdict
if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.'" Int'l Shortstop,
Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263-64 (5th Cir. 1991)
(citation omitted). The nonmoving party can then defeat the motion
by either countering with sufficient evidence of its own, or
3

"showing that the moving party's evidence is so sheer that it may
not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in
favor of the moving party." Id. at 1265.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party
will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may
satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the
record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the
nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden
then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or
referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a
genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonmovant may not rest
upon the pleadings but must identify specific facts that establish
a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., id. at 325; Little, 37 F.3d
at 1075.
DISCUSSION
The

Court

finds

that

Plaintiffs

have

failed

to

present

sufficient evidence that Vedros was exposed to asbestos that was
manufactured, sold, supplied, or distributed by GE. Plaintiffs have
not submitted any evidence to rebut GE's evidence that GE only
manufactured and distributed bare metal turbines and not asbestoscontaining insulation. Counsel for Plaintiffs make a number of
vague and conclusory statements in the Opposition that are not
supported by the affidavits or depositions to which Plaintiffs'
Counsel cites. It appears that, despite the vague and conclusory
4

allegations

of

Plaintiffs'

Counsel,

any

asbestos-containing

materials applied to the GE turbines were applied by insulators
employed

by

Avondale,

not

by

employees

of

GE.

Based

on

the

deposition testimony, it appears that GE inspectors may have been
present during the installation of the GE turbines. This is not
sufficient to hold GE liable for the acts of Avondale's insulators.
It therefore appears that Plaintiffs' only viable argument is that
GE, as the manufacturer or distributer of the turbines, should be
held

liable

for

the

asbestos-containing

materials

that

were

manufactured, distributed, and attached to the turbines by third
parties.
The Sixth Circuit appears to be "the only federal court of
appeals to consider" the liability of defendants for asbestoscontaining products manufactured or distributed by third parties.
Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 791, 797 (E.D. Pa.
2012); Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.
2005)). The Sixth Circuit "confirmed that a manufacturer is not
liable for asbestos-containing components and replacement parts it
did

not

manufacture

or

distribute."

Id.

(internal

citations

omitted) (citing Lindstrom, 424 F.3d 488 and Stark v. Armstrong
World Indus., Inc., 21 Fed. App'x 371 (6th Cir.2001)).
In Stark, the plaintiff brought suit against a manufacturer of
boilers, alleging that he worked in a boiler room and was exposed
to asbestos-containing products that were attached to the boilers.

5

Stark, 21 Fed. App'x at 381. The Sixth Circuit found that the
boiler manufacturer was not liable because it did not manufacture
or distribute the asbestos-containing products, only the boilers.
Id.

Similarly, in

Lindstrom, the Sixth Circuit found that a

defendant that manufactured water pumps and air compressors was not
liable for asbestos-containing products that were attached to the
pumps and compressors post-manufacture because the defendant did
not manufacture or distribute the asbestos-containing products.
Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 497. Additionally, it is clear that under
products liability law, a manufacturer cannot be held liable for a
failure to warn of the dangers of a product made by another
manufacturer. Conner, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 799 (citing Braaten v.
Saberhagen Holdings, 198 P.3d 493, 503-04 (Wash. 2008)).
Because Plaintiffs have not submitted sufficient evidence to
show that GE manufactured, sold, supplied, or distributed any
asbestos-containing products to Avondale, or that GE employees
attached any asbestos-containing materials to the turbines at
Avondale, Plaintiffs' claims against GE cannot survive summary
judgment, and their claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment
(Rec. Doc. 204) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of Plaintiffs' claims against
6

Defendant General Electric Company are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument, currently set
for Wednesday, March 26, 2014, is CANCELLED with respect to Rec.
Doc. 204.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions pending in the
above-captioned matter remain unaffected by this order.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 14th day of March, 2014.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7