Pizarro v. Astra Flooring Company

Background

The plaintiffs asserted claims against multiple defendants involving alleged asbestos exposure. The opinion specifically addressed National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) and Pep Boys – Manny, Moe & Jack of California. The parties agreed that maritime law applied to the claims against NASSCO, while California law applied to the punitive-damages issue involving Pep Boys.

NASSCO’s motions

NASSCO sought summary judgment based on government-contractor defenses. It argued that its work for the Navy gave it derivative immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. and protection under the government-contractor defense recognized in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. NASSCO also sought partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ premises-owner claim.

The court explained that these defenses required proof that NASSCO complied with relevant federal specifications and instructions. Under the government-contractor defense, the contractor also had to show that the United States approved reasonably precise specifications, that the work conformed to those specifications, and that the contractor warned the United States about known dangers that the United States did not know about.

The court found substantial factual disputes about NASSCO’s performance during the overhaul of the USS Bristol County. NASSCO presented evidence of Navy oversight and argued that it followed the Navy’s requirements. The plaintiffs presented contrary evidence that the Navy’s involvement was limited and that NASSCO exercised discretion in performing the work. Because a reasonable jury could resolve these disputes for the plaintiffs, the court denied NASSCO’s motion for summary judgment.

The court also denied NASSCO’s request for partial summary judgment on premises-owner liability. It found that unresolved facts about NASSCO’s compliance with safety standards affected both the government-contract work and NASSCO’s alleged responsibilities as a premises owner.

Pep Boys’ motions

The plaintiffs waived their claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraud by nondisclosure. Based on that waiver, the court granted Pep Boys’ requests for partial summary judgment on those two claims.

Pep Boys also sought partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Under California law, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. For a corporation, the relevant conduct must involve an officer, director, or managing agent, and malice includes despicable conduct carried out with a willful and conscious disregard for others’ safety.

The court found that the plaintiffs presented admissible circumstantial evidence sufficient to create a material dispute about malice. The evidence included testimony that Pep Boys knew it sold asbestos-containing brakes, received information and warnings about asbestos dust and cancer, and continued selling asbestos-containing brakes until 2001 without ensuring that warnings reached consumers. The court also considered evidence that Renato Pizarro performed maintenance that created visible dust while working with brakes purchased from Pep Boys.

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Pep Boys’ continued sale of asbestos-containing products without warnings constituted malicious conduct under California law. It therefore denied Pep Boys’ request for partial summary judgment on punitive damages.

Other defendants and disposition

The introduction states that all motions for summary judgment were denied except those filed by NASSCO and Pep Boys. The court’s conclusion states that NASSCO’s requests for summary judgment and partial summary judgment were denied; Pep Boys’ requests concerning negligent misrepresentation and fraud by nondisclosure were granted because the plaintiffs waived those claims; and Pep Boys’ remaining request concerning punitive damages was denied.

Judge William Alsup entered the order on March 30, 2021.