Rivet v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (2024)

Our plain-English summary of Rivet v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, May 2, 2024).

Tommy Rivet was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May 2022. He alleged that he was exposed to asbestos through his father and brother, who worked at Avondale Shipyard. He sued Avondale and a number of companies that allegedly made, sold or distributed asbestos-containing products. The case was removed to federal court in Louisiana. Mr. Rivet died in January 2023, and his wife Janet and daughter Kayla took over as plaintiffs. They asked for summary judgment on three points: that he had mesothelioma, that asbestos caused it, and that it caused his death. Eagle, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company, sued as the alleged insurer of The McCarty Corporation, took no position on those points. They argued that the source of the asbestos was still disputed. The court found the plaintiffs' evidence enough for reasonable jurors and noted that no defendant offered contrary evidence. It granted the motion. It stated that the ruling did not decide where the asbestos came from and did not stop any defendant from contesting the source.

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, Eastern District of Louisiana
• Decided: May 2, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 22-CV-2584
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted the plaintiffs' (Janet and Kayla Rivet) motion for summary judgment that Tommy Rivet had mesothelioma, that asbestos caused it, and that it caused his death, over the opposition of Eagle and Travelers, while leaving the source of the asbestos open.

What the court held. Summary judgment is proper on diagnosis, asbestos causation and death where the plaintiffs' evidence supports those findings and no defendant offers contrary evidence; the ruling does not decide the source of the exposure.

Issues decided: Causation, Wrongful Death and Survival.

The people and their exposure

• Tommy Rivet (family member): mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (premises owner)
• Eagle, Inc.
• Travelers Indemnity Company (as alleged insurer of The McCarty Corporation) (insurer)
• The McCarty Corporation

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.

TOMMY P. RIVET, ET AL.,

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET AL.,

Civil Action No. 22-CV-2584.

May 2, 2024.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

DARREL JAMES PAPILLION, District Judge.

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a motion styled "Motions for Summary Judgment that Tommy Rivet Had Mesothelioma, that Tommy Rivet's Mesothelioma Was Caused by Asbestos, and that Mesothelioma Caused Tommy Rivet's Death" filed by Plaintiffs Janet Rivet and Kayla Rivet ("Plaintiffs"). R. Doc. 167. Defendants, Eagle, Inc. ("Eagle") and Travelers Indemnity Company ("Traveler's"), in its capacity as the alleged insurer of The McCarty Corporation ("McCarty"), filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. R. Doc. 248. While these defendants state that they take no position regarding Plaintiffs' assertions that Mr. Rivet had mesothelioma that caused his death, or that his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos, they contend the source and origin of the asbestos that caused Mr. Rivet's mesothelioma are unresolved questions of fact, and thus, they oppose any finding that Mr. Rivet's mesothelioma was caused by Eagle or McCarty. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

In May 2022, Tommy Rivet ("Mr. Rivet") was diagnosed with mesothelioma that he allegedly developed from exposure to asbestos through his father, Libby Rivet, Sr. and his brother, Libby Rivet, Jr., as a result of their employment at Avondale Shipyard. R. Doc. 1-2 at ¶¶ 3, 4, 22. On July 6, 2022, Mr. Rivet filed suit in Orleans Parish's Civil District Court against Avondale and a number of companies that allegedly manufactured, sold, and/or distributed asbestos-containing products. R. Doc. 1-2. On August 9, 2022, Avondale removed Plaintiffs' civil action to this Court. R. Doc. 1. On January 27, 2023, Mr. Rivet died, and Mr. Rivet's wife and daughter filed an Amended Complaint substituting themselves as Plaintiffs. R. Doc. 71. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. R. Doc. 167.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence before the Court shows "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact by pointing out the record contains no support for the non-moving party's claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). Thereafter, if the nonmovant is unable to identify anything in the record to support its claim, summary judgment is appropriate. Stahl v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiffs attach to their motion substantial evidence that would allow reasonable jurors to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Rivet had mesothelioma that was caused by exposure to asbestos and that his mesothelioma led to his death. See R. Doc. 167-5 at 3, 167-6 at 2; 167-7 at 6-8; and 167-8 at 5-6. No Defendant, including those who have filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's motion, has offered evidence to refute Plaintiffs' evidence or otherwise establish a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Mr. Rivet had mesothelioma that was caused by exposure to asbestos and that his mesothelioma led to his death. The Court, therefore, finds that summary judgment is appropriate. The Court notes, however, that its ruling makes no judgment as to the source of the asbestos exposure that caused Mr. Rivet's mesothelioma, nor does this ruling prevent any Defendant in this matter from contesting the source of the asbestos that caused Mr. Rivet's mesothelioma. See Legendre v. La. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, No. 22-CV-1767, 2024 WL 1556842, at [*2] (E.D. La. Apr. 10, 2024).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' "Motions for Summary Judgment that Tommy Rivet Had Mesothelioma, that Tommy Rivet's Mesothelioma Was Caused by Asbestos, and that Mesothelioma Caused Tommy Rivet's Death" (Record Document 167) is GRANTED.

Sources

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