Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (E.D. Wash., Aug. 30, 2021)

Our plain-English summary of Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, August 30, 2021).

Kristina Strong sued Honeywell International and Pneumo Abex, individually and as administrator of the estate of Matthew Strong. She alleged he developed peritoneal mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing automotive friction products, including Bendix brand brakes made by Honeywell. Her complaint asserted product liability, negligence, negligent undertaking, strict liability, breach of warranty and conspiracy. Honeywell moved for partial summary judgment on failure to warn, conspiracy and breach of warranty. In this order the court addressed only conspiracy and breach of warranty. Honeywell argued there was no evidence of an agreement among defendants and no evidence of an express warranty or an unfit product. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion on those two claims. Because of that non-response, the court found an absence of evidence supporting a prima facie case and dismissed both claims with prejudice, entering judgment for Honeywell on them only. The failure-to-warn part of the motion stayed pending and was to be decided in a separate order.

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 Washington
• Decided: August 30, 2021
• Docket: No. 2:20-CV-136-RMP
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Washington

Outcome. The court granted Honeywell partial summary judgment on the conspiracy and breach of warranty claims, dismissing them with prejudice because Plaintiff Strong did not respond; the failure-to-warn portion of the motion remained pending.

What the court held. Where the plaintiff did not respond to the motion on a claim, the court found an absence of evidence supporting a prima facie case and granted summary judgment on that claim.

The people and their exposure

• Matthew Strong: peritoneal mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Honeywell International, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Pneumo Abex, LLC (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (August 31, 2021). The court denied Honeywell's motion for a protective order to cap plaintiff Kristina Strong's deposition-testimony designations at 15 transcripts, leaving Honeywell to oppose the designations on their merits.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (September 27, 2021). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a protective order barring Honeywell from obtaining Terry Strong's medical records and death certificate, and denied Honeywell's motion to exclude his product identification testimony and its request for a competency hearing.

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.

KRISTINA T. STRONG, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Matthew W. Strong,

deceased, Plaintiff,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Defendants.

No. 2:20-CV-136-RMP.

August 30, 2021.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT HONEYWELL'S MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE CONSPIRACY AND BREACH OF

WARRANTY

ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s ("Honeywell") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 56.

The Court heard oral argument on August 27, 2021, via video conference. Erin Fraser presented argument on behalf of Honeywell on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. John Steffan responded on behalf of Plaintiff Kristina T. Strong. The Court has reviewed the motion, heard oral argument, and is fully informed.

This is an asbestos case brought by Kristina Strong, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Matthew T. Strong. Decedent Matthew Strong developed peritoneal mesothelioma which Plaintiff alleges was caused by exposure to asbestos-containing automotive friction products, including Bendix brand brakes manufactured by Honeywell. See ECF Nos. 30, 80 at 1-2.

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserts liability based upon the theories of product liability; common law negligence; negligent undertaking; strict product liability under Section 402A and 402B of the Restatement of Torts (and RCW 7.72 et. seq., as may be applicable to certain supplier-defendants); breach of warranty (RCW 62A); and conspiracy. ECF No. 30 at 4.

Honeywell moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims based upon (1) failure to warn; (2) conspiracy; and (3) breach of warranty. See ECF No. 56.

A court may grant summary judgment where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact" of a party's prima facie case, and the moving party 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). A key purpose of summary judgment "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Id. at 324. The moving party bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, or in the alternative, the moving party may discharge this burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's prima facie case. Id. at 325.

With respect to Plaintiff's conspiracy claim, Honeywell contends that "Plaintiff cannot show any agreement among the defendants, much less one contemplating a nefarious purpose." ECF No. 56 at 8 (citing Corbit v. J.I. Case Co., 70 Wn. 2d 522, 528, 424 P.2d 290 (1967)) ("[A]n actionable civil conspiracy exists if two or more persons combine to accomplish an unlawful purpose or combine to accomplish some purpose not in itself unlawful by unlawful means."). Plaintiff did not respond to Honeywell's motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claim based on conspiracy. See ECF No. 80. With respect to Plaintiff's breach of warranty claim, Honeywell contends that Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case because "[t]here is no evidence in the record to suggest that Honeywell made an express warranty to Decedent, nor is there any evidence that any Bendix product purchased by Decedent or his father were unsuitable or unfit for their intended

purpose." ECF No. 56 at 8. Plaintiff did not respond to Honeywell's motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claim based on breach of warranty. See ECF No. 80.

Given Plaintiff's non-response, the Court finds that Honeywell has shown that there is an absence of evidence to support a prima facie case for Plaintiff's claims based on conspiracy and breach of warranty. Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate and Plaintiff's claims based on conspiracy and breach of warranty shall be dismissed with prejudice.

This Order does not resolve Honeywell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff's claim based on failure to warn. The Court will resolve whether or not partial summary judgment is appropriate with respect to Plaintiff's claim based on failure to warn by a separate and forthcoming order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 56, is GRANTED IN PART regarding Plaintiff's claims based on conspiracy and breach of warranty only.

2. Plaintiff's claims based on conspiracy and breach of warranty are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. Judgment shall be entered for Defendant Honeywell International Inc. on Plaintiff's claims for conspiracy and breach of warranty only.

4. Defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim based on failure to warn, ECF No. 56, remains pending and will be resolved by a separate and forthcoming order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.

Sources

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