Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (E.D. Wash., Mar. 8, 2022, summary judgment)

Our plain-English summary of Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, March 8, 2022).

Kristina Strong sued Honeywell International, individually and as administrator of the estate of her late husband, Matthew Strong. He developed peritoneal mesothelioma. She alleged that it was caused by repeated exposure to chrysotile asbestos from automotive friction products, including Bendix brake pads made by a Honeywell predecessor. Honeywell had raised three defenses in its answer, and the plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on them. Honeywell withdrew two of the defenses, and the court struck them. The remaining defense concerned Honeywell's claim that it had evidence of Mr. Strong's exposure to other forms of asbestos that can cause peritoneal mesothelioma. The court denied the motion. It found that the parties disputed material facts about his exposure to other forms of asbestos that may have caused the disease, and it stated that alternative causation evidence is admissible. The case therefore remained set for trial on that issue.

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: March 8, 2022
• Docket: No. 2:20-CV-0136-TOR
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Washington

Outcome. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the defendant's fifth defense, because material facts about the decedent's exposure to other asbestos remained disputed; Honeywell prevailed on the motion.

What the court held. Where the parties dispute material facts about the decedent's exposure to other forms of asbestos that may have caused the disease, summary judgment cannot be granted, and evidence of alternative causation is admissible.

Issues decided: Causation, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Matthew Strong: peritoneal mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Honeywell International, Inc., individually and as successor to Allied Signal, Inc. and The Bendix Corporation (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (March 8, 2022). The court rescinded its earlier order excluding plaintiff's experts Drs. Tarin and Cohen on specific causation and denied Honeywell's Daubert motion, so plaintiff Strong prevailed on this motion; no Daubert hearing was held.

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., Individually and as Successor to Allied Signal, Inc. and The

Bendix Corporation, Defendant.

No. 2:20-CV-0136-TOR.

March 8, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THOMAS O. RICE, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 69. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, the completed briefing, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is denied. BACKGROUND

This is a suit for damages 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's predecessor. See ECF No. 30 (Second Amended Complaint). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Strong's many years of repeated exposure to respirable chrysotile asbestos generated by Defendant's friction products (brake pads) was a significant causative factor in the development of his peritoneal mesothelioma. ECF No. 76 at 29.

Defendant raised three specific defenses in its Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 34 (Defense Nos. 5, 9, and 16). Plaintiff sought summary judgment on these three defenses.

Defendant withdraw its defenses numbered 9 and 16 because it determined they are inapplicable to this case after investigation and discovery. ECF No. 89 at 2. Accordingly, the Court entered an Order striking defenses numbered 9 and 16. ECF No. 136. The Court reserved ruling on defense number 5. Id.

Defendant contends that it has evidence of Matthew Strong's exposure to other forms of asbestos which cause peritoneal mesothelioma. It contends that this evidence is relevant and admissible at trial as to alternate exposures that cause this disease.

DISCUSSION

The Court may grant summary judgment in favor of a moving party who demonstrates "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must only consider admissible evidence. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to identify specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Id. at 252. For purposes of summary judgment, a fact is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. Further, a dispute is "genuine" only where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-

moving party. Id. The Court views the facts, and all rational inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). Summary judgment will thus be granted "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." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

Here the parties dispute material facts concerning the decedent's exposure to other forms of asbestos which may have caused the disease. Alternative causation is admissible.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 69, is DENIED.

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel.

Sources

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