Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp

Background

The plaintiffs were Ronald Viale’s wife and daughter. They alleged that Viale used, handled, or was otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing products provided or manufactured by the defendants; that he developed mesothelioma as a result; and that he died in July 2018. Against SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc. (SPX), they asserted claims for negligence, strict liability, false representation, and intentional tort.

The plaintiffs sued SPX only as the successor-in-interest to Marley Cooling Tower Company. SPX moved for summary judgment, or alternatively partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ punitive-damages claim. SPX argued that the plaintiffs lacked evidence showing Viale was exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Marley, particularly a cooling tower.

Court’s analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that matters to the outcome and the law requires judgment for the moving party. A defendant without the ultimate burden of persuasion may meet its initial burden by pointing out that the plaintiff lacks evidence needed to prove an essential part of the claim or by presenting evidence negating that essential part.

The court found that SPX met its initial burden through a declaration and evidence that included the plaintiffs’ disclosures, discovery responses, and deposition excerpts. The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to identify specific evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiffs submitted deposition excerpts, discovery responses, and two expert reports. They relied particularly on testimony from Bernard Upton and Steven Upton and on reports by Charles Ay and James Dahlgren.

Bernard Upton testified that Viale worked near cooling towers at two jobsites, but he did not know the manufacturer of either tower. Steven Upton testified that carpenters performed some exterior-wood maintenance on a Marley cooling tower at one jobsite. The tower was across the road and probably 150 feet from where Upton and Viale worked. The court found that the plaintiffs offered no evidence showing that this tower contained asbestos, that the exterior maintenance released asbestos, or that Viale was close enough to the tower when any release occurred.

The court noted that SPX had offered undisputed evidence that some Marley cooling towers incorporated asbestos-containing components during the relevant period. But that evidence did not establish that the particular tower involved here contained asbestos or that Viale was exposed to asbestos from it.

The court also rejected the expert opinions as support for a trial issue. Charles Ay’s opinion that Viale was exposed to asbestos from cooling towers, and James Dahlgren’s opinion that Viale’s mesothelioma resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products including cooling towers, relied on the Upton testimony. Because that testimony did not support the necessary factual assumptions, the court found the expert opinions insufficient to create a triable issue.

Disposition

The court granted SPX’s motion for summary judgment. The order does not state a disposition of claims against the other defendants or separately state a ruling on the alternative request concerning punitive damages.