Johnson et al v. Ablest, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 103 Motion for Summary Judgment. All of the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Judgment shall be entered simultaneously herewith. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/29/2022. (hms)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00336-MR-WCM
RIKA O. JOHNSON, Individually and )
as Executrix of the Estate of Jackie )
Lee Johnson, Deceased,
ABLEST, INC., as successor-by)
merger to C.H. HEIST CORP. as
successor-in-interest to PIPE &
BOILER INSULATION, INC., et al.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Warren Pumps, LLC (“Warren” or “the Defendant”) [Doc.
103]. The Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to the Defendant’s Motion.
Summary judgment is proper “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 party seeking summary
judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine dispute of
material fact exists for trial. Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir.
2013); Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522
(4th Cir. 2003). If this showing is made, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to convince the Court that a triable issue does exist. Dash, 731
F.3d at 311.
In considering the facts for the purposes of a summary
judgment motion, the Court must view the pleadings and materials presented
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must draw all
reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor. Adams v. Trustees of
the Univ. of N.C.-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 556 (4th Cir. 2011). Where the
non-moving party fails to respond, however, the Court may consider the
forecast of evidence presented by the movant to be undisputed for the
purposes of the summary judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
In order to survive summary judgment under North Carolina law, a
plaintiff in a personal injury asbestos case must present a forecast of
evidence showing actual exposure to the alleged offending products. Wilder
v. Amatex Corp., 314 N.C. 550, 553-54, 336 S.E.2d 66, 68 (1985).
Consistent with this standard, the Fourth Circuit has held that a plaintiff must
“prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the product containing
asbestos in order to hold [the defendant] liable.” Jones v. Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 716 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). To support a reasonable inference of substantial
causation based on circumstantial evidence, 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.”
Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir.
Here, the Defendant has demonstrated that the Plaintiffs lack a
forecast of evidence that the decedent actually worked with or around any
Warren product. The sole fact witness put forward by the Plaintiffs for
deposition in this matter was Barry Major, a co-worker of the decedent at
United Merchants and Manufacturers Inc., a/k/a Uniglass.
Major Dep. at 7]. Mr. Major testified regarding the construction and operation
of several large furnaces at the Uniglass facility.
He testified that the
decedent tended to the furnaces, which involved monitoring the operation of
the furnaces. [Id. at 9]. Mr. Major did not discuss any pumps used at the
facility, much less identify any pump brand or manufacturer such as Warren.
Mr. Major’s testimony is in accord with the Defendant’s own evidence, which
shows no records of any shipments to the Uniglass facility or any other of
the decedent’s worksites. As such, there is no evidence of the decedent’s
exposure to an asbestos-containing product of the Defendant sufficient to
establish causation under Lohrmann. As the Plaintiffs are unable to present
evidence of causation sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, the
Court concludes that summary judgment in favor of the Defendant is
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant
Warren Pumps, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 103] is
GRANTED, and all of the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Warren
Pumps, LLC are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A Judgment shall be entered simultaneously herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 29, 2022
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?