Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (E.D. La., Apr. 8, 2022, as to Union Carbide)

Our plain-English summary of Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, April 8, 2022).

Robert Stephen Sentilles was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2020 and sued several defendants for negligence and strict liability. He alleged exposure to asbestos dust from the 1950s to the 1980s. The claimed sources were his father's and brothers' work at Avondale, which they brought home on their clothing, his own work at Avondale from 1969 to 1972, and his work at Pelnor from 1974 through 1983. Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) also filed crossclaims and third-party claims. Union Carbide, Amchem, John Crane and Zurich (as alleged insurer of Marquette Insulations) moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence Sentilles was exposed to their products or to those of Zurich's insured. Neither Sentilles nor Avondale, both represented by counsel, filed an opposition by the deadline. The court found the motions unopposed and apparently meritorious. It treated the failure to oppose as an admission that the claims could not be proved, and granted the motions. Claims against these four defendants were dismissed 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: April 8, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 21-958
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Union Carbide, Amchem, Zurich (as alleged insurer of Marquette) and John Crane, and dismissed Sentilles's and Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s claims against them with prejudice.

What the court held. A party who fails to oppose a summary judgment motion is treated as admitting it cannot prove its claims. Under Louisiana law, an asbestos plaintiff must show exposure to the defendant's product and that the exposure was a substantial cause of his injury.

Issues decided: Causation, Insurance Coverage, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Robert Stephen Sentilles: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Union Carbide Corporation (manufacturer)
• Bayer CropScience, Inc., as successor to Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, f/k/a Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster Company (manufacturer)
• Zurich American Insurance Company (insurer)
• John Crane, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (Avondale) (employer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (December 20, 2021). The court denied defendant Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment, so plaintiff Sentilles may pursue his claims about exposure at Pelnor on or after September 1, 1975, and the court did not categorically exclude evidence of post-1975 exposure.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (April 8, 2022). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motions for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's claims about his employment there after June 23, 1969, and his secondary-exposure claims tied to his father and brother.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (April 22, 2022). The court granted Avondale's motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's state-law tort claims against Avondale, both occupational and take-home, as preempted by the LHWCA's exclusivity provision.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (April 25, 2022). The court granted Avondale's (Huntington Ingalls') summary judgment motion and dismissed Sentilles's state-law tort claims against it with prejudice, ruling that the LHWCA's exclusivity provision preempts them.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (June 21, 2022). The court granted Pelnor's Rule 54(b) motion, entering partial final judgment on the order dismissing plaintiff Sentilles's claims against Avondale so that the dismissal can be appealed immediately.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 3, 2024). The court granted Avondale's Rule 12(c) motion dismissing with prejudice Sentilles's reasserted claims about post-June 1969 Avondale work and his father's and brother's Avondale employment, denied his motion for reconsideration, and barred him from using Pelnor's experts Pierce and Roggli at trial.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 4, 2024). The court denied plaintiff Sentilles's motion in limine to exclude Avondale's expert Christopher Herfel, finding him qualified and his opinions relevant and reliable.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 20, 2025). The court granted Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment and denied First State Insurance Company's cross-motion, holding that First State must indemnify Pelnor for all of its reasonable defense attorney's fees and costs.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (February 10, 2025). The court ruled on Avondale's objections to plaintiff Sentilles's trial exhibits: it overruled some, sustained others (including expert reports and several publications as hearsay), deferred many to trial, and dismissed several as moot.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (March 30, 2025). The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Pelnor's motion: Pelnor may supplement its crossclaim with a bad faith claim against First State for events on or after January 20, 2025, but not for events between September 4, 2024 and January 20, 2025.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• McAskill v. American Marine Holding Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2009). The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Eagle, Branton and Commercial Union and remanded for further proceedings, so plaintiff McAskill's claims go forward.
• 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.

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.

ROBERT STEPHEN SENTILLES,

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., SECTION M (3), etal.

Civil Action No. 21-958.

April 8, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

BARRY W. ASHE, District Judge.

Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide"),[1] Bayer CropScience, Inc., as successor to Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, f/k/a Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster Company ("Amchem");[2] and Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich") as an alleged insurer of Marquette

Insulations, Inc. ("Marquette");[3] and third-party defendant John Crane, Inc. ("JCI").[4] The motions were set for submission on April 7, 2022. Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which deadline in this instance was March 30, 2022. Neither plaintiff Robert Stephen Sentilles nor plaintiff-in-crossclaim and third-party plaintiff Huntington Ingalls, Inc. ("Avondale"), who are both represented by counsel, filed an opposition to any of these motions. Accordingly, because the motions are unopposed and appear to have merit,[5]

IT IS ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment filed by Union Carbide, Amchem, Zurich, and JCI (R. Docs. 166; 167; 170; 173) are GRANTED, and the claims asserted against them by Sentilles and Avondale are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

[1] R. Doc. 166.

[2] R. Doc. 167.

[3] R. Doc. 173.

[4] R. Doc. 170.

[5] This case involves claims for asbestos exposure. On October 27, 2020, Sentilles was diagnosed with mesothelioma. R. Doc. 60 at 2-3. Sentilles filed this suit asserting negligence and strict liability claims against several defendants, alleging that his disease was caused by exposure to asbestos that occurred from the 1950s to the 1980s. Id. at 1-20. More specifically, Sentilles alleges that from the 1950s to the 1970s, his father worked at Avondale where he encountered asbestos dust and brought it home on his person and clothing, which resulted in Sentilles's exposure. Id. at 4. Similarly, Sentilles alleges that from 1968 through approximately 1974, he was secondarily exposed to asbestos dust brought home by his brothers who were employed at Avondale. Id. at 5. Further, Sentilles alleges that he was personally exposed to asbestos dust when he worked at Avondale from 1969 to 1972. Id. at 6. Finally, Sentilles alleges that he was exposed to asbestos when he worked at Pelnor from July 31, 1974, through 1983. Id. Avondale filed crossclaims and third-party claims. R. Doc. 64. To prevail in an asbestos case under Louisiana law, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was exposed to asbestos from the defendant's product and the exposure was a substantial cause of his injury. Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065, 1088 (La. 2009). When there are multiple causes of injury, "a defendant's conduct is a cause in fact if it is a substantial factor generating plaintiff's harm." Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 923 So. 2d 118, 122 (La. App. 2005) (citing Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So. 2d 930, 932 (La. App. 2004)). Because there is a medically demonstrated causal relationship between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, every non-trivial exposure to asbestos contributes to and constitutes a cause of mesothelioma. McAskill v. Am. Marine Holding Co., 9 So. 3d 264, 268 (La. App. 2009) (observing that the substantial-factor "burden can be met by simply showing that [the plaintiff] was actively working with asbestos-containing materials"). "Asbestos cases typically involve multiple defendants and courts have analyzed the cases under concurrent causation, a doctrine which proceeds from the assumption that more than one defendant substantially contributed to the plaintiff's injury." Adams, 923 So. 2d at 122 (citing Vodanovich, 869 So.2d at 933). Union Carbide, Amchem, and JCI argue that there is no evidence that Sentilles was exposed to their asbestos-containing products. R. Docs. 166-2; 167-2; 170-1. Similarly, Zurich argues that there is no evidence that Sentilles was exposed to asbestos-containing products of its insured, Marquette. By failing to oppose the motions for summary judgment, Sentilles and Avondale have admitted that they cannot prove their claims against

Union Carbide, Amchem, JCI, or Zurich. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) ("Rule 56(c) 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.").

Sources

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