Speck v. 3M Company

Background

Representatives of John Speck’s estate brought this wrongful-death action. They alleged that Speck developed asbestosis after working as a civilian electrician at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in California from the 1960s through the 1980s, where he inspected and repaired electrical equipment. Speck was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2011 and died in 2021. The second amended complaint asserted product-liability, fraud, negligence, and related claims against multiple manufacturers.

Nine remaining defendants primarily sought summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence of causation. Defendants and other parties also sought to exclude plaintiffs’ proposed asbestos and pulmonology experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court deferred the expert-exclusion requests for a later stage and addressed evidentiary objections only as needed to decide the summary-judgment motions.

Applicable law

The court reaffirmed that federal maritime law governs the negligence claims because the alleged asbestos exposure occurred while Speck worked on Naval vessels and equipment intended for Naval vessels. Under that law, plaintiffs had to show that Speck was actually exposed to asbestos-containing materials supplied or manufactured by a defendant and that the exposure was a substantial contributing factor in causing his injuries. Minimal or merely speculative exposure was insufficient.

Rulings on product-liability and negligence claims

General Dynamics Corporation

Summary judgment was granted in favor of General Dynamics, and General Dynamics was dismissed. The court found that plaintiffs had not identified evidence from which a jury could conclude that Speck was actually exposed to asbestos from equipment General Dynamics placed on three submarines. Speck’s testimony about the work he performed and possible insulation disturbance was too vague and speculative to create a triable issue of fact.

Bath Iron Works Corporation

Summary judgment was denied for Bath Iron Works. Bath Iron Works acknowledged that the original insulation on its 1940s Naval destroyers contained asbestos. Evidence showed that Speck worked for three or four months during an overhaul of the USS Agerholm, where other workers removed equipment and insulation, creating substantial dust that Speck had to walk through. The court concluded that this evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide whether Speck was actually exposed and whether the exposure was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. The court also stated that expert testimony was not mandatory to prove asbestos causation in this case.

Gould Electronics, Inc.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Gould on the strict-liability and negligence claims, and Gould was dismissed. Even assuming plaintiffs could show actual exposure while Speck worked on motor controllers associated with Gould-owned ITE, plaintiffs did not establish the frequency or duration of that work or exposure levels sufficient to support substantial-factor causation. The court found that Dr. Barry Horn’s general opinion that all asbestos exposures contributed to Speck’s disease did not distinguish exposure attributable to ITE materials and could not fill the factual gaps.

PECW Holding Company f/k/a Plastics Engineering Company (Plenco)

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Plenco, and Plenco was dismissed. Plaintiffs showed that Plenco supplied asbestos-containing phenolic molding compound to manufacturers that allegedly supplied motor controllers, and that Speck’s description of certain arc chutes was consistent with Plenco’s material. The court held that this did not establish that Plenco supplied the materials to which Speck was exposed. The evidence showed that many suppliers existed and that the materials could not be identified by appearance alone. Plaintiffs also lacked evidence about the nature, frequency, or duration of Speck’s work on any Plenco-supplied controllers.

Union Carbide Corporation

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Union Carbide, and Union Carbide was dismissed. Speck testified that he worked with “Bakelight” terminal strips but did not know who manufactured them, whether they contained asbestos, or whether “bakelite” referred to a brand. Plaintiffs also lacked evidence about the nature, frequency, or duration of work with asbestos-containing Bakelite that could support causation.

Ericsson Inc.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Ericsson, and Ericsson was dismissed. Although Speck recalled working with Anaconda cable, plaintiffs did not present evidence that the cable contained asbestos. The court found that expert Charles Ay’s testimony did not establish the asbestos content of Anaconda cable, and Speck’s vague testimony about dusty or fibrous cable did not create a triable issue.

RSCC Wire & Cable

Summary judgment was granted in favor of RSCC Wire & Cable, and RSCC was dismissed. Speck recalled working with Rockbestos cable but could not describe it with enough specificity or identify asbestos inside its insulation. Evidence that some Rockbestos shipboard cable contained asbestos was insufficient to show that the particular cable Speck used probably contained asbestos.

Metalclad Insulation LLC

Summary judgment was denied for Metalclad. Metalclad sold asbestos-containing insulation to Mare Island Naval Shipyard for reactor components on several submarines. Evidence showed that Speck worked on the USS Guitarro and USS Pintado and was exposed to insulation work in reactor areas. The court held that this evidence created a triable issue on actual exposure.

Government-contractor defense

The court rejected the government-contractor defense asserted by Bath Iron Works and Metalclad. The defense can protect a military contractor from certain design-defect claims when the United States approved reasonably precise specifications, the equipment conformed to them, and the supplier warned the United States about known dangers unknown to it. The court held that neither defendant established the factual prerequisites on this record.

For Metalclad, military approval of its insulation and use of military specifications did not establish that the insulation was military equipment rather than a product substantially similar to goods sold commercially. The record also indicated that asbestos was not required to meet the Navy’s additional requirements. For Bath Iron Works, a general expert opinion that Navy purchases were made under contracts and subject to specifications did not show that asbestos use was required for the insulation on the relevant vessels.

Fraud claims and punitive damages

Eaton Corporation

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Eaton on plaintiffs’ fraud and fraud-conspiracy claims. Plaintiffs conceded that summary judgment was appropriate on the conspiracy claim. For the nondisclosure theory, plaintiffs needed to show a transaction or relationship creating a duty to disclose. Their discovery responses did not identify such a transaction or relationship between Eaton and Speck, Speck did not remember contact with anyone at Eaton, and plaintiffs’ opposition identified no contrary evidence.

Eaton’s motion for summary judgment on punitive damages was denied. The court rejected Eaton’s argument that plaintiffs had to identify a particular corporate officer responsible for the alleged conduct. It also declined to consider an argument raised for the first time in Eaton’s reply brief.

Ericsson Inc.

Summary judgment was also granted in favor of Ericsson on plaintiffs’ fraud claim. Plaintiffs conceded summary judgment on the conspiracy claim. Because plaintiffs failed to show that Speck was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which Ericsson was responsible, the court held that they could not establish injury from alleged fraud by Ericsson.

Conclusion

General Dynamics Corporation’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and that defendant was dismissed. Bath Iron Works Corporation’s motion was denied. Eaton Corporation’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted. Gould Electronics, Plenco, Union Carbide, Ericsson, and RSCC Wire & Cable each received summary judgment and were dismissed. Metalclad Insulation LLC’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The court stated that judgment would be entered separately in favor of General Dynamics, Gould, Plenco, Union Carbide, Ericsson, and RSCC Wire & Cable.