Miller et al v. 3M Company et al

Filing 426

ORDER granting 390 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 392 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 398 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 399 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 402 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, granting [40 1] Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 403 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 405 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 407 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 409 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 411 Motion for Summary Ju dgment, granting 413 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 415 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against movants are dismissed. Additionally, all cross-claims against defendant Parker-Hannifin Corporation are dismissed. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 7/8/2014. (Marsh, K)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:12-CV-00620-BR JANE E. MILLER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Wesley Miller, Deceased, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA ) MINING MANUFACTURING CO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER This matter is before the court on the motions for summary judgment of defendants Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Caterpillar Inc., Dana Companies LLC, Goulds Pumps, Inc., ITT Corporation f/k/a ITT Industries, Inc., FMC Corporation, McNally Industries, Inc. (sued as McNally Industries, LLC), Pneumo Abex LLC, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Paccar, Inc., and Ingersoll Rand Company (collectively “movants”). (DE ## 390, 392, 398, 399, 401, 402, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413, 415.) Neither plaintiff nor any defendant has filed a response to any of these motions, and the time within which to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth in movants’ motions/memoranda, namely, plaintiff has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence that the decedent, Robert Wesley Miller, was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which any of the movants is liable, the motions are ALLOWED. See Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 716 (4th Cir. 1995) (“This Court has previously held that the plaintiff in a personal injury asbestos case ‘must prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the product’ containing asbestos in order to hold the manufacturer of that product liable. Instead, the plaintiff must present ‘evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.’” (quoting Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir. 1986) (footnote omitted)); Yates v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., No. 5:12-CV-752-FL, 2014 WL 348301, at *4-5 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2014) (recognizing that asbestos-exposure torts arising from the plaintiff’s service aboard U.S. Navy ships are governed by maritime law, which requires “a plaintiff to show ‘for each defendant, that 1) he was exposed to the defendant's product, and 2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered.’” (quoting Lindstrom v. A–C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original)).1 Plaintiff’s claims against movants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, all cross-claims against defendant Parker-Hannifin Corporation are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This 8 July 2014. __________________________________ W. Earl Britt Senior U.S. District Judge 1 The decedent in this case was employed for a period of time aboard U.S. Navy ships. (See Mem., Ex. C, DE # 4163.) 2

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?