Lapointe v. 3M Company (2007)

Our plain-English summary of Lapointe v. 3M Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, November 5, 2007).

Joseph LaPointe and his wife Yvette sued 3M Company and other defendants in Rhode Island Superior Court. Mr. LaPointe worked about forty years as a boiler and furnace repairman, servicing commercial and residential units, some allegedly containing asbestos. He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2005. Mrs. LaPointe claimed loss of consortium. Parker Boiler Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs could not identify any asbestos-containing product it made or sold. Mr. LaPointe recalled servicing two commercial sites listed in a Massachusetts boiler registry as having Parker boilers, but those boilers, made in 1986 and 1991, contain no asbestos. The plaintiffs said the motion was premature because Parker had given limited, unresponsive answers to the court-approved master interrogatories and document requests. The court agreed. It noted the registry lists only existing commercial boilers, so Mr. LaPointe might have serviced Parker boilers since removed or in homes. The court denied the motion as premature and ordered Parker to answer more fully within fourteen days.

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: Rhode Island Superior Court
• Decided: November 5, 2007
• Docket: No. C.A. No. PC 06-2418
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Rhode Island

Outcome. The court denied Parker Boiler Corporation's motion for summary judgment as premature and ordered Parker to give more responsive answers to the court-approved master interrogatories and requests for production within fourteen days, so the LaPointe plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.

What the court held. Summary judgment on product identification is premature where the plaintiffs cannot learn whether the defendant made the boilers the worker serviced until the defendant gives responsive answers to court-approved discovery requests.

Issues decided: Loss of Consortium, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Joseph LaPointe: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Parker Boiler Corporation (manufacturer)
• 3M Company

Other decisions in this case

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

• LaPOINTE V 3M Company (November 5, 2007). The court denied defendant Laars Heating Systems' summary judgment motion as premature, ordered Laars to give more responsive answers to the master interrogatories and document requests, and gave the LaPointes more time to review them.

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.

JOSEPH LAPOINTE AND YVETTE LAPOINTE

v.

3M COMPANY, etal.

No. C.A. No. PC 06-2418.

Filed: November 5, 2007.

State of Rhode Island, Superior Court, PROVIDENCE, S.C.

DECISION

GIBNEY, J.

Before the Court is defendant Parker Boiler Corporation's (Parker) Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56. The Plaintiffs, Joseph LaPointe (Mr. LaPointe), and his wife, Yvette LaPointe (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), object to the motion.

Facts/Travel

On May 3, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Providence County Superior Court against various defendants alleging, inter alia, that Mr. LaPointe suffered asbestos-related injuries as a result of his occupational exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing materials during his career as a boiler and furnace repairman. He alleges that those exposures caused him to develop malignant mesothelioma, which was diagnosed in 2005. Mrs. LaPointe alleges loss of consortium stemming from Mr. LaPointe's injuries.

The Plaintiffs assert that some of the asbestos-containing products that caused Mr. LaPointe's injuries were manufactured, distributed, or sold by Parker. Parker contends that Plaintiffs have no reasonable expectation of identifying at trial any asbestos-containing products that it sold, manufactured or distributed. The Plaintiffs object, contending that the motion is premature; instead, they move the Court to compel Parker to fully respond to the Court-Approved Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production.

Mr. LaPointe worked for forty years as a boiler and furnace repairman. During that period, he serviced both commercial and residential boilers and furnaces, some of which allegedly contained asbestos. Although he recalls many of the locations at which he worked, given the length of his career and the thousands of boilers and furnaces upon which he worked, he is unable to recall all of them. During the course of discovery, Mr. LaPointe obtained the Massachusetts Commercial Boiler Registry (Registry), which details existing boilers located at commercial premises. The Registry does not, however, list the locations of residential boilers. Mr. LaPointe specifically remembers servicing two of the listed commercial premises where Parker boilers were present. Currently, the Parker boilers at these locations do not contain asbestos. Standard of Review

It is axiomatic that "[s]ummary judgment is a proceeding in which the proponent must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, pleadings and other documentary matter. . . that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that there are no genuine issues of material fact." Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Association, 603 A.2d 317, 320 (R.I. 1992). During a summary judgment proceeding, "the [C]ourt does not pass upon the weight or credibility of the evidence but must consider the affidavits and other pleadings in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Id. at 320. Moreover, the Court "must look for factual issues, not determine them. The [court's] only function is to determine whether there are any issues involving material facts." Steinberg v. State, 427 A.2d 338, 340 (R.I. 1981). The Court's purpose during the summary judgment procedure is always "issue finding, not issue determination." Gliottone v. Ethier, 870 A.2d 1022, 1028 (R.I. 2005).

Analysis

Parker maintains that its motion for summary judgment should be granted because Mr. LaPointe has been unable to identify his contact with any asbestos-containing products that were sold, manufactured or distributed by Parker. The Plaintiffs respond by asserting that they have been unable to discover any such information due to Parker's failure to fully respond to the Court-Approved Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production.

Super. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) establishes the scope of discovery in a civil action. It provides:

"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Super. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

"Rule 37(d) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure affords a trial justice wide discretion to enforce its discovery orders. . . ." The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Builders Resource Corp., 785 A.2d 568, 569 (R.I. 2001); see also State v. LaChapelle, 638 A.2d 525, 531 (R.I. 1994) ("The duty to make an honest and candid response to discovery requests should not be diluted by semantic gymnastics.").

Relying upon the Court-Approved Master Interrogatories, Plaintiffs asked Parker questions such as whether it had manufactured or distributed any products containing asbestos fibers from 1930 to the present, and if so, the trade or brand name of such products, their chemical composition, and whether they were accompanied by any kind of written health warnings. In its answers, Parker repeatedly responded in the following manner:

"The defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in view of the facts adduced during discovery, including in particular the plaintiff's deposition testimony concerning his work with boilers from a variety of manufacturers. In this regard, the plaintiff has testified that he reviewed the Massachusetts Boiler Registry in order to isolate specific locations where he may have serviced boilers throughout his career. The plaintiff recognized two locations, 1068 Slade Street and 994 Jefferson Street, Fall River, Massachusetts as locations where he may have serviced boilers at some point in his career, though he could not provide any information about when he was at these locations. The Massachusetts Boiler Registry indicates that a Parker Boiler Co. boiler is located at these addresses. The plaintiff was unable to confirm whether a Parker Boiler Co. boiler was present when he was at these locations, and has no memory of ever working on or around a Parker Boiler Co. boiler. Moreover, the Parker Boiler Co. boilers that are present at these locations were manufactured in 1986 and 1991 respectively, and neither contain asbestos."

The Plaintiffs objected on grounds that such answers are limited and unresponsive. The Court agrees, and it grants Plaintiffs time for more discovery.

Mr. LaPointe's career spanned forty years and involved service calls to both commercial and residential properties. The Registry only lists boilers that currently exist and that are located in commercial properties. It does not list boilers in residential properties, nor does it list boilers in commercial properties that previously have been removed or replaced. It is conceivable that Mr. LaPointe serviced Parker-manufactured boilers that have since been removed from the listed commercial properties, or that he serviced Parker boilers in residential properties. However, Plaintiffs have no way of finding out such information until Parker gives responsive answers to the Court-Approved Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production. See The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Builders Resource Corp., 785 A.2d 568, 569 (R.I. 2001).

Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Motion for Summary Judgment is "premature" and should be denied. The Court orders Parker to provide more responsive answers to the Court-Approved Master Interrogatories and Requests

for Production within fourteen days from the filing date of this Decision.

Counsel shall submit an appropriate order for entry.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Rhode Island asbestos laws
• Rhode Island asbestos exposure sites