Hockler v. The William Powell Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2014)

Our plain-English summary of In re New York City Asbestos Litigation (New York Supreme Court, October 20, 2014).

Bryan Hockler was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2013 and sued several companies in New York. He said he was exposed to asbestos in the 1980s while working as a salvager. He retrieved scrap metal from valves and pumps in hospital boiler rooms and other commercial buildings in New York City before demolition, and he identified some of the valves as Powell valves. The William Powell Company asked the court for summary judgment. It argued that Hockler was not a foreseeable user of its valves, that it had no duty to warn about asbestos parts made by others, and that his activities were not a foreseeable use or misuse. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that foreseeability is generally a question for trial. Powell's representative testified that the company knew its valves would wear out, had no removal procedure, and treated old valves as scrap. He also said Powell sold valves with asbestos gaskets and packing, and replacement gaskets and packing. A jury could find Powell failed to warn Hockler.

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: New York Supreme Court
• Decided: October 20, 2014
• Citation: 2014 NY Slip Op 32752
• Docket: Docket No. 190235/13, Motion Seq. No. 002
• Stage: Summary judgment
• Unpublished opinion. Many courts limit citing unpublished opinions as precedent.
• State: New York

Outcome. The court denied The William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Bryan Hockler's complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim goes forward.

What the court held. Foreseeability of use or misuse of a product is generally a fact question for trial, and a manufacturer that sells asbestos-containing gaskets and packing for its valves may have a duty to warn of asbestos hazards whether or not it made those components.

Issues decided: The Bare-Metal Defense, Failure to Warn, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Bryan Hockler: mesothelioma

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Bryan Hockler	salvager (construction)	commercial buildings and hospital boiler rooms, New York, New York	1980s	gaskets and packing, W.M. Powell valves (William Powell Company)

The defendants

• The William Powell Company (manufacturer)
• 3M Company

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Reid v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1995). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Rapid-American Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Kenneth Reid's claim against it continues.

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.

2014 NY Slip Op 32752(U)

IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

BRYAN HOCKLER, Plaintiff,

v.

3M COMPANY, etal, (WILLIAM POWELL CO.), Defendants.

Docket No. 190235/13, Motion Seq. No. 002.

October 20, 2014.

Supreme Court, New York County.

DECISION & ORDER

SHERRY KLEIN HEITLER, Judge.

In this asbestos personal injury action, The William Powell Company ("Powell" or "Defendant") moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it. Powell argues that that it owed no duty to warn plaintiff Bryan Hockler ("Plaintiff") of the hazards associated with asbestos since he was not a foreseeable user of its products, that it had no duty to warn of the dangers associated with asbestos components manufactured by third parties, and that Plaintiff's activities were not a foreseeable use or foreseeable misuse of its products. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma on February 18, 2013 and commenced this action on July 8, 2013. He contends that he was exposed to asbestos during the 1980's while working as a salvager. In this regard Plaintiff testified[1] that he was responsible for retrieving salvageable metal from equipment such as valves and pumps from hospital boilers rooms and the like prior to demolition.[2] Plaintiff performed this work in commercial buildings throughout New York City.[3] He identified some of the valves he encountered as bearing the name W.M. Powell.[4]

Summary judgment is a drastic measure which should only be granted if the moving party resolves all triable issues of fact in its favor. See Tronlone v Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, 297 AD2d 528, 529 (1st Dept 2002) aff'd, 99 NY2d 647 (2003); Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 (1974). Should the moving party fail to establish its prima facie case, the motion must be denied irrespective of the sufficiency of the non-moving party's arguments. Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 852 (1985); Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980). If the moving party meets its prima facie burden the non-moving party must then come forth with sufficient evidentiary facts which demonstrate the existence of a triable issue. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). In asbestos litigation, a plaintiff must show that there was exposure to asbestos fibers released from the defendant's product. Cawein v Flintkote Co., 203 AD2d 105, 106 (1st Dept 1994). In this context, the plaintiff need only show "facts and conditions from which the defendant's liability may be reasonably inferred." Reid v Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 AD2d 462, 463 (1st Dept 1995).

A manufacturer "has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known." Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232, 237 (1998); see also Rogers v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 268 AD2d 245 (1st Dept 2000). This includes a duty to warn of dangers relating to unintended uses, providing that such uses are reasonably foreseeable. Liriano, supra, at 237.

The Defendant takes the position that salvagers such as Mr. Hockler were not entitled to warnings as a matter of law because salvaging is not a foreseeable use or even a foreseeable misuse of its valves. However, issues of foreseeability of use and misuse are generally considered to be material issues of fact that require fact-finding at trial. Young v Daglian, 63 AD3d 1050, 1051 (2d Dept 2009); Johnson v Johnson Chem. Co., 183 AD2d 64, 70 (2d Dept 1992). In this case, the testimony of the Defendant's corporate representative, Mr. William J. McClure[5], plainly demonstrates that Powell knew its valves had a finite shelf life and that they would have to be maintained and eventually removed over time. Notably, Mr. McClure admitted that Powell had no procedure outlined for such removal process. He also referred to valves that were no longer in use as "scrap" (Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, pp. 40, 41, 42, 43-44, objections omitted):

Q. And there comes a point in time when a Powell valve may have to be removed from service, correct? A. It could.

Q. Powell knew that its valves didn't really last forever, correct?

A. That's true.

* * * *

Q. Okay. Did Powell have a procedure for the disposal of old Powell valves that were no longer being used?? A. No, we didn't. . . .

* * * *

Q. Sir, so Powell Valves never told its customers: Here is what you do—here is what you should do when you are throwing away our old valves, right?

A. No. As far as we were concerned it was scrap after they got — when they got through with it.

Q. Okay. So none of the manuals or instruction books produced by Powell discuss the ultimate removal and disposal of old Powell valves that weren't going to be used anymore, right, that were scrap?

A. That's true.

* * * *

Q. Sir, one follow-up question. Sir, from Powell's perspective, does it matter if you hit a valve that is going to be scrap metal with a sledgehammer?

A. No. If you are working with scrap metal they can use whatever.

From this testimony it is evident that the foreseeability of exposure from the removal and scrapping of Powell valves was well within the scope of the Defendant's expectations. The Defendant's attempt to differentiate between salvagers such as Mr. Hockler from maintenance workers whose activities admittedly constituted proper use of its valves is misguided. The work performed by such trades pose a similar if not identical risk of asbestos exposure and the court would be remiss to adopt such an arbitrary distinction.

The court also rejects the Defendant's contention that it had no duty to warn Plaintiff of the dangers associated with asbestos-containing replacement parts. In the asbestos context, the First Department recently clarified that "where a manufacturer does have a sufficiently significant role, interest, or influence in the type of component used with its product after it enters the stream of commerce, it may be held strictly liable if that component causes injury to an end user of the product." Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Dummit], 2014 NY App. Div. LEXIS 4964 (1st Dept July 3, 2014); see also Liriano, supra; Rogers, supra. Mr. McClure, who was deposed in connection with an unrelated asbestos action in 2007,[6] admitted that Powell not only sold valves which integrated asbestos gaskets and packing but also sold replacement asbestos gaskets and packing.[7] Given such testimony there can be no dispute that Powell placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. It therefore had a duty to warn of the hazards associated therewith whether or not it manufactured them.

In sum, the evidence presented points to the fact that Powell sold asbestos-containing valves, that Powell knew such valves would have to be maintained and would eventually be removed at the end of their life cycle, and that the removal process would have caused the release of asbestos-laden dust. Given these facts a jury could reasonably conclude that Powell breached its duty to Mr. Hockler to warn him of the hazards associated with asbestos. See Reid, supra; Cawein, supra. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that The William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

[1] Mr. Hockler was deposed on November 14, 2013 and November 15, 2014 ("Deposition"). His videotaped deposition was taken on December 13, 2013 ("Video Deposition"). Copies of his deposition transcripts are submitted as Plaintiff's exhibits 2-4. [2] Video Deposition, p. 23.

[3] Deposition, p. 94

[4] Video Deposition, p. 40.

[5] A copy of Mr. McClure's deposition transcript is submitted as Plaintiff's exhibit 6.

[6] Mr. McClure was deposed in connection with an unrelated asbestos personal injury action venued in Los Angeles, California on or about April 4, 2007. A copy of his deposition transcript from that case is submitted as Plaintiff's exhibit 5. [7] Id. at 135-144, 155-157.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites