Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (E.D. La., Mar. 31, 2022)

Our plain-English summary of Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, March 31, 2022).

Eldridge Joseph Sanchez, Jr., who is described as deceased, alleged he was exposed to asbestos-containing products made or sold by various defendants, or by their insureds, and developed mesothelioma as a result. His claims, along with cross-claims by Huntington Ingalls (Avondale), were pending in federal court in Louisiana. Seven defendants moved for summary judgment: John Crane, Pharmacia, Bayer CropScience, Crane Company, Goulds Pumps, and two insurers, Century Indemnity and Zurich American. They argued that the record, including Sanchez's deposition and expert reports, showed no evidence he was exposed to their products or, for the insurers, their insureds' products. No one opposed the motions. Applying Louisiana law, the court said plaintiffs had to show significant exposure to each defendant's product and that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing his injury. Because plaintiffs and Avondale offered no evidence, the court granted the motions and dismissed all claims and cross-claims against these defendants with prejudice.

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: March 31, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 20-2973
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted seven unopposed summary judgment motions by John Crane, Pharmacia, Bayer CropScience, Crane Company, Century Indemnity, Zurich American and Goulds Pumps, dismissing all claims against them with prejudice.

What the court held. Under Louisiana law, a plaintiff must show significant exposure to the defendant's product and that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the injury; with no opposing evidence, summary judgment is required.

Issues decided: Causation, Insurance Coverage, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Eldridge Joseph Sanchez, Jr.: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• John Crane, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Pharmacia, LLC (manufacturer)
• Bayer CropScience, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Crane Company (manufacturer)
• Century Indemnity Company (insurer)
• Zurich American Insurance Company (insurer)
• Goulds Pumps, LLC (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (April 21, 2021). The court granted Avondale's motion to dismiss Sanchez's loss of consortium claim and granted Lamorak Insurance's unopposed motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims against Lamorak.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (March 14, 2022). The district court granted unopposed summary judgment for Viking Pump and Grefco, dismissing the plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice for lack of evidence of exposure to their products.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (March 15, 2022). The court granted unopposed summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, Atwood & Morrill, and Crescent Materials, dismissing plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2009). The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal's judgment for Ray Rando against his former employers JCI and Parsons, holding his tort suit was not barred by workers' compensation exclusivity or peremption and upholding liability and the $2.8 million general damages award.
• Vodanovich v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2004). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Sank, Inc. (formerly Buck Kreihs Co.) and Dixie Machine Welding and Metal Works, dismissing the wrongful death claim of the longshoreman's estate for lack of proof of exposure.
• Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The court affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Kaylo insulation) and Rock Wool (One Shot cement), reversed the judgments against Garlock, A.W. Chesterton and Flexitallic, affirmed the judgments against Abadie, Naquin and Terrebonne and the dismissal of Plaisance's claim as prescribed, and ordered a virile-share reduction for Avondale's settlement that, on rehearing, applies only to Duronslet.

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.

ELDRIDGE JOSEPH SANCHEZ, JR.,

v.

ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (4).

Civil Action No. 20-2973.

March 31, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge.

Before the Court are seven motions for summary judgment, filed respectively by John Crane, Inc. ("JCI"),[1] Pharmacia, LLC,[2] Bayer CropScience, Inc.,[3] Crane Company ("Crane"),[4] Century Indemnity Company ("Century"),[5] Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"),[6] and Goulds Pumps, LLC ("Goulds")[7] (collectively, "movants"). No party opposes the motions.

For the following reasons, the Court grants the motions, and dismisses all claims against these defendants. I. BACKGROUND

This is an asbestos-exposure case. Decedent Eldridge Joseph Sanchez, Jr. alleged that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by various defendants and/or their insureds, and developed mesothelioma as a result.

Defendants JCI, Pharmacia, Bayer CropScience, Crane, Century, Zurich, and Goulds have each moved for summary judgment, contending that there is no evidence that Sanchez was exposed to their respective products or, as to the insurance companies, the products of their insureds. Movants point to the summary-judgment record, including Sanchez's deposition testimony and expert reports, which they contend contains no evidence of exposure to their products. Movants assert that the claims of plaintiffs, and the cross-claims of Huntington Ingalls, Inc. ("Avondale"), must therefore be dismissed. There is no opposition to these motions.

The Court considers the motions below.

II. DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is warranted when "the movant 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); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See id. at 324.

The Court finds that movants have each discharged their respective summary-judgment burdens by pointing out that plaintiffs' evidence is inadequate to meet the essential elements of their claims against them. Specifically, plaintiffs are unable to meet their burden to show that (1) Sanchez had "significant exposure" to movants' products, and that (2) exposure to their products "was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury." Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065, 1091 (La. 2009) (quoting Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 726 So. 2d 926, 948 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998)); see also Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So. 2d 930, 932 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (indicating that plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both

elements). For these same reasons, movants have also discharged their summary-judgment burdens as to Avondale's cross-claims against them, which arise solely out of Sanchez's allegations of asbestos exposure.[8] No party opposes these motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, neither plaintiffs nor Avondale have not pointed to evidence creating an issue of material fact, nor have they provided the Court with any other reason to deny summary judgment to these movants. See Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 ("Rule 56 `mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)). Accordingly, defendants' motions for summary judgment must be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS JCI's,[9] Pharmacia's[10] Bayer CropScience's,[11] Crane's,[12] Century's,[13] Zurich's,[14] and Goulds's[15] motions for summary judgment. All claims against JCI, Pharmacia, Bayer CropScience, Crane, Century, Zurich, and Goulds are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

[1] R. Doc. 306.

[2] R. Doc. 309.

[3] R. Doc. 314.

[4] R. Doc. 316.

[5] R. Doc. 317.

[6] R. Doc. 319.

[7] R. Doc. 320.

[8] See R. Doc. 3 at 21-23.

[9] R. Doc. 306.

[10] R. Doc. 309.

[11] R. Doc. 314.

[12] R. Doc. 316.

[13] R. Doc. 317.

[14] R. Doc. 319.

[15] R. Doc. 320.

Sources

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