Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (D. Md., May 5, 2016)

Our plain-English summary of Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, May 5, 2016).

Charles Arbogast, Jr., and his wife Barbara sued twenty-seven companies, alleging that as manufacturers or distributors of various products they exposed him to asbestos and caused his mesothelioma. The complaint raised strict liability, negligence, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, and loss of consortium. This short memorandum dealt with several pending summary judgment motions. The plaintiffs said they did not oppose the motions, or the parts of them addressed here. They also offered no evidence of aiding and abetting or conspiracy in response to any motion. The court inferred they were not pursuing those claims against any defendant and granted partial judgment on them. It allowed the plaintiffs to ask for revision with supporting evidence. Fourteen defendants remained in the case, one of them subject to an automatic bankruptcy stay. A separate order was to follow.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
• Decided: May 5, 2016
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Maryland

Outcome. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions that the plaintiffs did not oppose, and entered partial judgment for all defendants on the aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims; fourteen defendants remain in the case.

What the court held. Where plaintiffs offered no evidence of aiding and abetting or conspiracy in opposing summary judgment, the court inferred they were not pursuing those claims and granted partial judgment against them.

The people and their exposure

• Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr.: mesothelioma

The defendants

• CBS Corporation of Delaware (manufacturer)
• Crane Company (manufacturer)
• Eaton Corporation (manufacturer)
• Foster Wheeler, LLC (manufacturer)
• Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (manufacturer)
• General Electric Company (manufacturer)
• Georgia-Pacific, LLC (manufacturer)
• Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (manufacturer)
• MCIC, Inc.
• Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
• Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Sepco Corporation (manufacturer) · its asbestos trust
• Union Carbide Corporation (manufacturer)
• Uniroyal Holding, Inc. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (May 18, 2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert Dr. Vance's opinions that GE wire and GE marine turbines exposed Arbogast to asbestos, and granted summary judgment to General Electric on all of the Arbogasts' claims against it.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (June 6, 2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert's opinion about asbestos exposure from Micarta and granted summary judgment to CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) against Charles and Barbara Arbogast on all claims.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (July 25, 2016). The court granted summary judgment to Eaton (Cutler Hammer), Foster Wheeler, Schneider Electric (Square D), Union Carbide and Crane. It denied summary judgment to MCIC and denied Georgia-Pacific's motion against the strict liability claim.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., etal., Plaintiffs.

v.

A.W. CHESTERTON CO. etal., Defendants.

Civil No. JKB-14-4049.

May 5, 2016.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

MEMORANDUM

JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., and Barbara Arbogast, sued twenty-seven defendants— of whom twenty-four remain in the case—and alleged they, as manufacturers and/or distributors of various products, caused Charles Arbogast to be exposed to asbestos, which led to his diagnosis of mesothelioma. (Compl., ECF No. 2.) The complaint contains four counts, including Count I — strict liability, Count II — negligence, Count III — aiding and abetting and conspiracy, and Count IV — loss of consortium. Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages in excess of $75,000. Various motions are pending that, if granted, will streamline the case considerably. Plaintiffs have stated they do not oppose the motions, or parts thereof, that are subject of this memorandum. (See Pls.' Opp'n to CBS's Mot. Summ. J. 3 n.1 (ECF No. 493); Pls.' Opp'n to Crane Co.'s Mot. Summ. J. 3 n.1 (ECF No. 494); Pls.' Opp'n to Georgia-Pacific's Mot. Summ. J. 3 n.1 (ECF No. 495); Pls.' Opp'n to Union Carbide's Mot. Summ. J. 4 n.1 (ECF No. 496); Pls.' Opp'n to Foster Wheeler's Mot. Summ. J. 3 n.1 (ECF No. 498); Pls.' Opp'n to MCIC's Mot. Summ. J. 3 n.1 (ECF No. 499); Pls.' Let. 2-3 (ECF No. 503).) In addition, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence of aiding and abetting and conspiracy in opposition to any motion for summary judgment. (See Pls.' Opp'n to GE's Mot. Summ. J. (ECF No. 497); Pls.' Opp'n to Eaton's Mot. Summ. J. (ECF No. 501).) The Court infers, then, that Plaintiffs are not pursuing those claims against any Defendant and will grant partial judgment on that basis. If Plaintiffs believe the Court's view as to their aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims is in error, then they may file a motion with supporting evidence asking for a revision of this ruling.

As a result of the various rulings made today, the following Defendants remain in the case: CBS Corporation of Delaware; Crane Company; Eaton Corporation; Foster Wheeler, LLC; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; MCIC, Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; Sepco Corporation (but subject to automatic bankruptcy stay); Union Carbide Corporation; and Uniroyal Holding, Inc. A separate order will enter.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Maryland asbestos laws
• Maryland asbestos exposure sites