Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (W.D. Pa., Apr. 26, 2021, as to Air & Liquid Systems)

Our plain-English summary of Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, April 26, 2021).

Allisa Gay, as executor of her father Carl Gay's estate, sued Air & Liquid Systems Corp. and other companies. Mr. Gay was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2019 and died in April 2020. He had served in the Navy aboard the USS Seawolf, served in the Air Force at the SM-1 nuclear plant at Ft. Belvoir, and later worked for Stone & Webster at the Beaver Valley Power Station. He also did automotive work. Air & Liquid is the successor to Buffalo Pumps. It asked for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not show he was exposed to asbestos from its pumps. The court applied Pennsylvania law and its test of frequency, regularity and proximity of exposure. It found that Mr. Gay never named Buffalo pumps in his deposition. A co-worker's recollection of Buffalo pumps at Beaver Valley covered a period after Mr. Gay left. Sales records showed only that products were supplied, not where they were used. The plaintiff also did not show the pumps contained asbestos. The court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid.

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, Western District of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 26, 2021
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1311
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Pennsylvania

Outcome. The court granted summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiff Allisa Gay, because the evidence did not show that Carl Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Buffalo pump.

What the court held. Under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must show exposure to the specific defendant's asbestos-containing product with sufficient frequency, regularity and proximity for a jury to infer that it was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The mere presence of the product at a workplace is not enough.

Issues decided: Causation, Choice of Law, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Carl E. Gay: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Carl E. Gay	engineman (the Navy); military service	USS Seawolf	before 1959	gaskets and packing, Buffalo pumps (Air & Liquid / Buffalo Pumps, Inc.)
Carl E. Gay	worked on pumps by packing them and taking them apart (power plants and utilities)	SM-1 nuclear power facility, Ft. Belvoir, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia	1958-1961	gaskets and packing, Buffalo pumps (Air & Liquid / Buffalo Pumps, Inc.)
Carl E. Gay	Stone & Webster employee (power plants and utilities); worked near others using it	Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania	1974-1976

The defendants

• Air & Liquid Systems Corp., successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (April 26, 2021). The district court granted Gardner Denver's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because she did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a Gardner product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (April 26, 2021). The court granted Hunter Sales Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiff Allisa Gay because she did not show that Carl Gay breathed asbestos fibers from Hunter Sales gaskets.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (April 26, 2021). The district court granted summary judgment to Flowserve U.S., Inc. (successor to Durametallic Corp.) because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not show he was exposed to asbestos from Durametallic products.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (April 27, 2021). The district court granted summary judgment for Atwood (Weir Valves & Controls USA) against the estate of Carl Gay because the plaintiff did not show sufficient exposure to Atwood valves.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (April 27, 2021). The district court granted Mueller Steam Specialty's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not identify a Mueller Steam product as a cause of his mesothelioma.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (April 27, 2021). The district court granted Carrier Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff, the estate of Carl Gay, could not show Carrier's product was a substantial cause of his mesothelioma.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The court granted the Exelon defendants' summary judgment motion on claims about the Limerick Power Station and denied it on claims about the Nine Mile Power Plant, so the estate's claim continues only as to Nine Mile.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The district court granted Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Honeywell and against the plaintiff estate, because the plaintiff did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Honeywell product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The district court granted Warren Pumps LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because the evidence did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a Warren pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The district court granted Viking Pump's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay, finding no genuine issue that he was exposed to asbestos from a Viking pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The district court granted Square D/Schneider Electric's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay because the plaintiff did not show that the Square D products at issue contained asbestos.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a GE product with enough frequency, regularity and proximity.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The district court granted Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because she did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Yuba product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (June 17, 2021). The court denied Power Piping Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the estate of Carl Gay, represented by his daughter Allisa Gay, may continue its claim against Power Piping.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (June 25, 2021). The court ruled on General Electric's summary judgment motion in a federal asbestos case, but the opinion contradicts itself: the reasoning finds the plaintiff failed to show enough exposure to GE products and says the motion is granted, while the opening and closing paragraphs say it is denied.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (February 15, 2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's non-product motion for summary judgment, ruling against the plaintiff estate because Duquesne Light owed Mr. Gay no duty as landowner or as employer of an independent contractor.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (February 16, 2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining premises liability claim, ruling for Duquesne Light and against the estate of Carl Gay.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries (U.S. Supreme Court, 2019). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's judgment vacating summary judgment for the equipment manufacturers (Air and Liquid Systems, CBS, Foster Wheeler, Ingersoll Rand, General Electric) and sent the case back so the District Court could reconsider under the Court's own duty-to-warn test, which favored the veterans' families.
• Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts Company (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Eastern District, 2007). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's order, which had reversed summary judgment for V-J Auto Parts, held that the trial court did not err in applying the frequency, regularity, proximity assessment, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Tragarz v. Keene Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1992). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the $3,000,000 judgment for Grace Tragarz against Keene and Owens-Corning Fiberglas, but reversed the denial of Keene's request to file a contribution cross-claim against OCF and remanded for proceedings between the two defendants.
• Kardos v. Armstrong Pumps, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2019). The Superior Court vacated the summary judgments for the remaining defendant-appellees, reversed the order precluding Mr. Kardos' affidavit and deposition, and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the plaintiff estate.
• Krauss v. Trane US Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for General Electric, Georgia-Pacific, CBS/Westinghouse, Goulds Pumps, Zurn Industries and Trane (American Standard), and the executrix lost.
• Gutteridge v. AP Green Services, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2002). The Superior Court reversed the summary judgments for Hercules Chemical, Pecora and PECO, which had been entered against Mrs. Gutteridge, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Wilson v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2002). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Flintkote Co. against the administratrix of Dolly Chase's estate, finding no sufficient evidence that she was exposed to Flintkote Fibrex Cement.
• Eckenrod v. GAF Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1988). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for A-Best, Porter, Raymark, Owens-Corning and Garlock, because the widow and co-defendant Pittsburgh Gage did not show the decedent was exposed to those defendants' asbestos products.
• Mehnert v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2020). The district court denied Fisher Scientific's motion for summary judgment, so the Mehnerts' negligence and loss of consortium claims against Fisher go forward to a jury.
• Walker v. Blackmer Pump Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of Ingersoll-Rand, Warren Pumps and Blackmer Pump, so the plaintiff's claims against all three go forward.

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.

ALLISA D. GAY, Plaintiff,

v.

A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, etal., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1311.

April 26, 2021.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN, IV, District Judge.

Plaintiff Allisa D. Gay ("Plaintiff") sued Defendant Air & Liquid Systems Corp. ("Air & Liquid"), as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., and various manufacturers and distributors on October 8, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and alleged that Decedent Carl E. Gay ("Decedent") developed mesothelioma from exposure to Defendant's asbestos-containing products. On October 11, 2019, Defendant General Electric Co. filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Before the Court is Air & Liquid's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 904). The Court must determine whether Plaintiff has properly identified Air & Liquid's product as a cause of Mr. Gay's disease and, ultimately, death. For the following reasons, Air & Liquid's Motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

This case involves an alleged asbestos-related injury because of Mr. Gay's employment in the United States Navy from 1946 to 1958, the United States Air Force from 1958 to 1967, General Electric Co. from 1967 to 1974, Stone and Webster from 1974 to 1989 and from his automotive work starting in the 1940s. (See ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2). Mr. Gay was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2019. (Id. ¶ 165; ECF No. 675).

Mr. Gay was deposed over nine days—November 5-7, 11-13, 21-22, 25, 2019—and identified various manufacturers, suppliers and users of asbestos products. Mr. Gay died on April 12, 2020. (Id. ¶ 165; ECF No. 675). His daughter, Allisa D. Gay, was named executor of her father's estate and filed an Amended Complaint on August 13, 2020. (ECF No. 692). Allisa Gay was substituted as Plaintiff (Id.).

II. Relevant Facts

Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Gay developed mesothelioma from exposure to Defendant's asbestos-containing products while working at various sites throughout Mr. Gay's career. Plaintiff contends Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos products aboard the USS Seawolf before 1959; the SM-1 power plant at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia; and the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 in Shippingport, Pennsylvania during the 1970s. (ECF No. 947, p. 2). Air & Liquid is a successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (ECF No. 905, p. 1). Buffalo Pumps manufactured pumps used throughout the United States. Mr. Gay did not identify Defendant in his deposition and did not allege exposure to any asbestos-containing product manufactured, supplied or used by Defendant. (ECF No. 905, p. 2).

As part of his training for serving aboard the USS Seawolf, Mr. Gay attended Union College in Schenectady, New York and went to a General Electric facility in West Milton, New York where he worked inside a prototype of a nuclear submarine identical to the USS Seawolf. (ECF No. 905-2, pp. 3-5). Mr. Gay served aboard the USS Seawolf as an engineman during its maiden voyage and stayed with the submarine until July 1958. (Id. at 13).

Mr. Gay also spent nine years serving in the U.S. Air Force and was assigned to the SM-1 facility at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia from 1958 until January 1961. (Id. at 16). During that time, Mr. Gay worked on pumps by packing them and taking them apart. (Id.

at 18). He returned to the SM-1 facility as a supervisor in 1967. (Id. at 16).

Between 1974 and 1976, Stone & Webster employed Mr. Gay where he worked at the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit One, a nuclear power plant. Mr. Gay believed he was exposed to asbestos through the work of outside contract employees during the 1970s. (ECF No. 947-4, ¶ 24).

Defendant supplied blueprints, which called for asbestos gaskets, and invoices listing asbestos-containing parts for its sales to the USS Seawolf and SM-1 facility. (See ECF Nos. 947-1; 947-3). Plaintiff also highlights the deposition of James Daugherty who worked at the Beaver Valley Power Station after Mr. Gay left. Mr. Daugherty recalled Buffalo pumps during his tenure at the Beaver Valley Power Station. (ECF No. 947-9, pp. 2-3). Mr. Daugherty could not recall many specifics relating to the Buffalo pumps at the Beaver Valley Power Station. (Id.).

III. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is warranted if the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317,-322 (1986). A fact is material if it must be decided to resolve the substantive claim or defense to which the motion is directed. In other words, there is a genuine dispute of material fact "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court must view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255. It refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing evidence. Id. "Real questions about credibility, gaps in the evidence, and doubts as to the sufficiency of the movant's proof" will defeat a motion for summary judgment. El v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 479 F.3d 232, 238 (3d Cir. 2007). IV. Applicable Law

A. The Court Will Apply Pennsylvania Law.

The parties agree that Pennsylvania substantive law applies although some of the alleged exposures occurred on a U.S. Navy submarine. Under traditional admiralty choice of law rules, a court may apply state law if it does not conflict with federal admiralty law. See Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 40 F.3d 622 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Floyd v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 844 F.2d 1044, 1046-47 (3d Cir. 1988) (courts may substitute state law with maritime law when maritime law is silent or a local matter is at issue, but a court may not apply state law where it would conflict with maritime law); Centennial Ins. Co. v. Lithotech Sales, LLC, 29 F. App'x. 835, 836 (3d Cir. 2002) (maritime law displaces only inconsistent state law). For these reasons, the Court will apply Pennsylvania law. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); see also Guar. Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 108 (1945).

In most instances, Pennsylvania law does not conflict with maritime law. That said, Defendant asserts a bare-metal defense for its products incorporated into the USS Seawolf. (ECF No. 977, p. 3). The bare-metal defense provides that if a manufacturer did not itself make, sell or distribute a part or incorporate a part into the product, the manufacturer is not liable for any harm caused by the integrated part, even if that part were necessary for the functioning of the product or if the manufacturer knew the incorporated part was dangerous. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, 139 S. Ct. 986, 993 (2019). The United States Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries held that the bare-metal defense is inapplicable in the maritime law context. Id. at 996. As a result, the Court need not reach the bare-metal defense in this context. B. Causation Standard

Before imposing liability on a defendant in a product liability action, Pennsylvania law requires a plaintiff to show not only that the plaintiff was exposed to a defective product manufactured or sold by the defendant but that the plaintiff's exposure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury. Richards v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 660 F. Supp. 599 (E.D. Pa. 1987); Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co., 943 A.2d 216, 224-26 (Pa. 2007); accord Robertson v. Allied Signal Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 375 (3rd Cir. 1990) (applying Pennsylvania law). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in asbestos litigation that "it is appropriate for courts, at the summary judgment stage, to make a reasoned assessment concerning whether, in the light of the evidence concerning frequency, regularity, and proximity of a plaintiff's or decedent's asserted exposure, a jury would be

entitled to make the necessary inference of a sufficient causal connection between defendant's product and the asserted injury." Gregg, 943 A.2d at 226-27 (adopting the frequency, regularity and proximity standard in asbestos cases). As a result, a plaintiff must prove he was exposed to asbestos from a defendant's product with sufficient frequency, regularity and proximity so that a jury could make the necessary inference of an adequate causal connection between that product and the asserted injury. Id. at 227.

As for proximity, a plaintiff cannot merely show that the product was present at the plaintiff's workplace; he must present evidence to establish that he inhaled asbestos fibers of the specific product of a manufacturer. Kardos v. Armstrong Pumps, Inc., 222 A.3d 393, 399 (Pa. Super. 2019); Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 804 A.2d 643, 652 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 829 A.2d 1158 (2003).

V. ANALYSIS

Defendant moves for summary judgment because it is not liable for injuries caused by asbestos products for two reasons. First, it argues Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to satisfy her burden of showing that Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos fibers of any product manufactured, distributed or supplied by Air & Liquid. Second, it contends Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to satisfy her burden of showing that Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos fibers of any product manufactured, distributed or supplied by Air & Liquid on a regular, frequent or proximate basis.

"At the heart of an asbestos case is at least product identification—that is, a plaintiff cannot triumph against a manufacturer unless he shows that the victim came across the manufacturer's product and that the product caused his injury." Mehnert v. Agilent Techs., Inc., No. CV 18-893, 2020 WL 1493542 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2020) (quoting Walker v. Blackmer Pump Co., 367 F. Supp. 3d 360, 372 (E.D. Pa. 2019)). Such an inquiry is "fact-intensive." Id.

For Plaintiff to defeat Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff must show not only that Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos-containing products with sufficient proximity, regularity and frequency to cause his injuries but also that the asbestos products to which Plaintiff claims exposure were manufactured, distributed or sold by Defendant. Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50, 53 (Pa. Super. 1988); see also Wilson v. A.P. Green Indus., 807 A.2d 922, 924 (Pa. Super. 2002) ("Ideally, a plaintiff or a witness will be able to directly testify that plaintiff breathed in asbestos fibers and that those fivers came from defendant's product."). The Court has a "duty to prevent questions from going to the jury which would require it to reach a verdict based on conjecture, surmise, guess or speculation." Krauss v. Trane, 104 A.3d 556, 568 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

A. Plaintiff Identified No Air & Liquid Products Present at Mr. Gay's

Worksites.

Plaintiff has not supplied evidence establishing that Mr. Gay worked around Defendant's products containing asbestos. Defendant admits that the record establishes that Defendant supplied some asbestos-containing products to five locations at which Mr. Gay worked during his career, but Plaintiff cannot show that Mr. Gay was exposed to any of those products. Plaintiff cites the deposition of a colleague who started work at the Beaver Valley Power Station after Mr. Gay left. (ECF No. 947-9, p. 2). Mr. Daugherty thought he recalled Buffalo pumps, but he was unable to recall specifically where the pumps were located and could only guess how they were used. (Id.). Showing that a product was present at a workplace does not establish that a plaintiff was exposed to that product. See Eckenrod, 544 A.2d at 52 ("[A] plaintiff must establish more than the presence of asbestos in the workplace; he must prove that he worked in the vicinity of the product's use."). Plaintiff also argues asbestos-containing pumps were present on the USS Seawolf while Mr. Gay served aboard the submarine. The record Plaintiff cites is from the 1960s and 1970s, but Mr. Gay left the USS Seawolf in 1958. Defendant argues that the fact the U.S. Navy may have bought asbestos-containing products from Defendant does not prove Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from Defendant's product. (Id. at 7). As for Mr. Gay's work at the SM-1 nuclear power station in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, Mr. Gay never identified Buffalo Pumps after naming several other manufacturers. (Id. at 8). Plaintiff contends a portion of sales documents coincide with the time Mr. Gay worked at two sites: USS Seawolf and SM-1 nuclear facility. (See ECF No. 947, p. 2). Outside those correlations, Plaintiff cannot show where those items, if at all, were placed in the facilities. A "plaintiff must establish more than mere presence of asbestos in the workplace; he must prove that

he worked in a vicinity in which a specific manufacturer's product was used." Gutteridge, 804 A.2d at 652. The Court holds that Plaintiff's evidence cannot establish Mr. Gay worked near asbestos-containing materials manufactured by Defendant. B. Plaintiff Failed to Show Air & Liquid's Products Contained Asbestos.

Even if Plaintiff established that Mr. Gay were exposed to Defendant's products, Plaintiff cannot show that those products contained asbestos. Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence to show that a Buffalo pump was present and installed on the USS Seawolf or at the SM-1 or Beaver Valley Power Station or that if present or installed that it contained asbestos. Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Gay worked on a gasket or was exposed to a gasket or any other alleged asbestos-containing product that was original to a Buffalo pump. Nor has Plaintiff shown that Defendant required the use of asbestos-containing materials in its pumps at the locations during the time Mr. Gay was present. Plaintiff must establish that Mr. Gay's injuries were caused by an asbestos-containing product from a specific manufacturer or supplier. Eckenrod, 544 A.2d at 52. The Court holds that Plaintiff's evidence cannot establish that a Buffalo Pumps product contained asbestos. C. Plaintiff Failed to Establish Mr. Gay Was Exposed to Air & Liquid Pumps

with Requisite Frequency, Regularity and Proximity.

Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Gay was exposed to Buffalo Pumps with the necessary frequency, regularity and proximity. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co., 943 A.2d 216, 225 (Pa. 2007) adopted the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit in Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992). The Seventh Circuit held that the frequency, regularity and proximity of exposure criteria do not establish a rigid standard with an absolute threshold necessary to support liability. Tragarz, 980 F.2d at 420. Instead, a court should apply the criteria in an evaluative fashion to help distinguish cases in which a plaintiff can proffer evidence showing a sufficient likelihood that the defendant's product caused the harm, from a case in which such likelihood is not present because of casual or minimal exposure to the defendant's product. Id.

Plaintiff cites the testimony of James Daugherty to establish that Buffalo pumps were present at the Beaver Valley Power Station years after Mr. Gay left the facility. (See ECF No. 947, pp. 10-11). That testimony does not establish that Mr. Gay was exposed to a Buffalo pump, let alone one that contained asbestos.

Plaintiff offers the industrial hygiene report of Frank Parker, CIH and the report of Arnold Moore, PE to suggest Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos fibers throughout his career. (See id. at 11-13). Neither report mentions Buffalo pumps. Plaintiff cites the deposition of Buffalo Pumps corporate representative, Terrence Kenny, which shows that certain Buffalo pumps may have incorporated asbestos-containing components from the 1940s to 1980s. (Id. at 13). The report, though, provides no other specifics beyond generalizations that Buffalo Pumps created asbestos-containing products. Defendant highlights that, ultimately, the record shows that it might have supplied some asbestos-containing products to certain locations that Mr. Gay worked during his career but does not show if these products were ever used or installed, where they were used, if any maintenance was performed on them or if Mr. Gay was present during this effort. (ECF No. 977, p. 10). Defendant argues that the facts taken in a light most favorable to Plaintiff show no more than the mere presence of Defendant's product at Mr. Gay's workplace it goes no further to show that Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Buffalo Pumps product. (Id.).

A factfinder could not find for Plaintiff without making several inferential leaps. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff has not proffered enough evidence to show Air & Liquid's pumps were a substantial factor in Mr. Gay's mesothelioma.

VI. Conclusion

The Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact does not exist in this case. As a result, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Orders of Court will follow.

Sources

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