Smargisso v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation

Background

This wrongful-death action concerns William Ankiel Jr.’s alleged exposure to asbestos-containing equipment while serving as a U.S. Navy boiler technician aboard the USS Hollister. The opinion states that Ankiel served aboard the vessel from October 1975 to April 1978, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in April 2022, and died shortly afterward. Stephanie Smargisso, Ankiel’s successor in interest, and Ankiel’s children sued equipment manufacturers under theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ankiel encountered asbestos from equipment components, including insulation, gaskets, and packing. The opinion addresses motions filed by Warren Pumps, IMO Industries, Inc., Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Foster Wheeler LLC, and Redco Corporation.

Evidentiary Motions

The court denied Warren Pumps’ motion to strike shipmate Terry Orton’s testimony. Warren argued that plaintiffs’ counsel had stipulated that Orton would not testify against Warren, that the redirect examination exceeded the permitted scope, that the questions were leading, and that the testimony should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court rejected those arguments, finding that any stipulation was withdrawn during the same deposition, the questioning was permissible, the questions were not leading, and the testimony’s value on causation was not outweighed by unfair prejudice or confusion.

The court also denied Warren’s motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the rule from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals governing the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. The court allowed testimony from plaintiffs’ naval experts Michael Poulson and Captain Arnold Moore because they could rely on shipmates’ testimony together with their expertise about naval operations.

The court also denied Warren’s objections to opinions from Dr. David Zhang, Dr. Marty Kanarek, Dr. Perry Gottesfeld, and Dr. Arnold Brody concerning asbestos exposure and mesothelioma. The court distinguished permissible case-specific or general evidence about significant exposure, fiber quantities, and disease risk from an impermissible theory that every exposure, however small, necessarily caused the disease. The court stated that Zhang and Kanarek could not testify that exposure specifically from Warren pumps was a substantial factor because their reports did not offer that opinion, but they could provide general principles for the jury’s assessment.

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Applying federal maritime law, the court considered whether the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find that Ankiel was exposed to asbestos from Warren’s and IMO’s products and that the exposure was a substantial contributing factor in causing his mesothelioma.

The court denied Warren’s and IMO’s motions for summary judgment on causation. As to Warren, the court found sufficient evidence that Warren pumps were on the USS Hollister and that Ankiel worked on them, including Orton’s testimony that he and Ankiel worked on everything in the boiler room and records showing that Warren manufactured pumps for the ship and supplied replacement parts to the Navy.

As to IMO, formerly DeLaval, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that asbestos-containing replacement gaskets and packing in DeLaval pumps were supplied by DeLaval. The court also held that, even if the replacement parts were not made by DeLaval, a jury could find IMO potentially liable because its pumps required asbestos-containing components and the evidence raised factual questions concerning the manufacturer’s knowledge of the dangers and the Navy’s knowledge. The court further found evidence from which a jury could conclude that Ankiel’s repeated work removing gaskets and packing over approximately two and a half years involved exposure substantial enough to contribute to his mesothelioma.

Government-Contractor Defense

The court granted Warren’s motion for summary judgment on the government-contractor defense as applied to the plaintiffs’ design-defect claims because the plaintiffs did not oppose that part of the motion.

The court denied Warren’s motion for summary judgment on the defense as applied to failure-to-warn claims. The defense requires proof that the government exercised discretion and approved particular warnings, that the contractor provided the warnings required by the government, and that the contractor warned the government about dangers known to the contractor but not the government. The court found genuine factual disputes about the Navy’s knowledge of asbestos dangers, whether the Navy exercised discretion in approving warnings, and whether the required elements were satisfied.

Non-Pecuniary Damages

The court granted Foster Wheeler’s, Warren’s, and IMO’s motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims for non-pecuniary damages. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown that punitive damages, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, or lost future earnings were historically available for the negligence and strict-liability claims at issue under general maritime law. The court also stated that lost future earnings were unavailable in this wrongful-death action because such actions provide survivors a remedy for losses they suffered from the death, rather than injuries suffered by the decedent.

Plaintiffs’ Motions on Affirmative Defenses

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on the government-contractor defense as applied to failure-to-warn claims. It found triable factual issues concerning each part of that defense.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on the defendants’ sophisticated-user and sophisticated-intermediary defenses. The defendants did not produce sufficient evidence that Ankiel knew, or reasonably could have been expected to know, about the asbestos risks associated with replacing pump packing and gaskets. The defendants also did not provide sufficient evidence that they knew the Navy’s level of awareness at the relevant time or reasonably believed that the Navy would warn its employees.

The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on the superseding-cause defense. The defendants did not produce sufficient evidence that the Navy’s failure to warn was unforeseeable or caused harm different in kind from the harm associated with the alleged failure to warn.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin denied Warren’s evidentiary motions and denied Warren’s and IMO’s motions for summary judgment based on causation. She granted Warren’s motion for summary judgment on the government-contractor defense for design-defect claims and granted Warren’s, IMO’s, and Foster Wheeler’s motions for summary judgment on non-pecuniary damages. She granted the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on the sophisticated-user, sophisticated-intermediary, and superseding-cause defenses, denied their motion concerning the government-contractor defense for failure-to-warn claims, and stated that the remaining motions were denied.