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 #401 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 Judgment, 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) Modified on 7/9/2014 to reflect that order did not rule on #403 Motion for summary judgment. (Marsh, K)

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