Walls v. Ford Motor Company (M.D.N.C., Nov. 8, 2021)

Our plain-English summary of Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, November 8, 2021).

Laura Walls sued several companies, individually and as executor of her husband Robie Walls's estate. She alleged he died of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure during a career from 1960 to 2002 as a tractor-trailer fleet mechanic. Three defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff did not oppose any of the motions. DCo, which sold gaskets and clutches, argued the exposure to its products was too slight. The court agreed: Walls did not recall using DCo gaskets, used DCo clutches only once or twice, and saw new DCo clutches only in the 1980s or 1990s, when most were asbestos-free. Eaton, which supplied aftermarket axles with asbestos brakes, won because Walls never testified to working with Eaton axles. Morse Tec, successor to Borg-Warner, sought judgment only on punitive damages; the court granted it because the plaintiff offered no evidence of fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct. DCo and Eaton were dismissed from the case.

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, Middle District of North Carolina
• Decided: November 8, 2021
• Docket: No. 1:20-CV-98
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: North Carolina

Outcome. The court granted summary judgment to DCo and Eaton on all claims, and to Morse Tec on the punitive damages claim, because plaintiff Laura Walls did not oppose the motions or present supporting evidence.

What the court held. In an asbestos case under North Carolina law, a plaintiff must show actual exposure to the defendant's product that was a substantial factor in causing the injury, which requires more than casual or minimal contact. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct.

Issues decided: Causation, Product Identification, Punitive Damages.

The people and their exposure

• Robie W. Walls: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Robie W. Walls	tractor-trailer truck fleet mechanic (auto mechanics and brake work)		1960 to 2002	brakes, clutches and friction materials, gaskets and packing, DCo gaskets and clutches, Eaton aftermarket truck axles with asbestos brakes, Borg-Warner clutches

The defendants

• DCo LLC (supplier)
• Eaton Corp. (supplier)
• Morse Tec LLC (manufacturer)
• Ford Motor Company (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (April 30, 2021). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motions to compel and for sanctions against CRA Trailers: CRA must give the plaintiff its Sales Index and pay part of her attorney's fees, but need not disclose net worth or former employees' contact information.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (September 27, 2021). The court granted in part and denied in part Pneumo Abex's motion to compel, ordering Plaintiff to give Abex and the joining defendants the grids and test results from her consulting expert's tissue analysis but not his opinions; the motions to join were granted and the parties were told to confer on expert fees.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (February 25, 2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendants' affirmative defenses, so the plaintiff won on assumption of risk, sophisticated user, workers' compensation exclusivity and several others, while the manufacturers kept contributory negligence, product misuse and intervening cause (in part) for trial.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (February 25, 2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part six defendants' summary judgment motions and denied Abex's motion entirely: product liability claims survived against all seven defendants, punitive damages claims were dismissed against ZF, Carlisle, Strick, ArvinMeritor and Navistar, and loss of consortium was dismissed against Strick and Ford.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (August 11, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions to exclude expert testimony before trial: plaintiff's experts may testify that each defendant's products contributed to and caused Mr. Walls' mesothelioma, but not that any exposure was a legal 'substantial factor'.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (September 30, 2022). The court granted defendant Pneumo Abex's motion in limine and Rule 702 motion, excluding documents, lay testimony and expert testimony about the mouse tumor data from Saranac Laboratory Experiment 774, a ruling against plaintiff Laura Walls.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (October 25, 2022). The court denied Ford Motor Company's motion to reconsider the earlier partial denial of summary judgment, so Plaintiff Laura Walls's claims against Ford remained pending.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (October 25, 2022). The court denied plaintiff Laura Walls's motion for leave to supplement the record with a supplemental expert report from Dr. Holstein in opposition to the defendants' Daubert motions.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (October 28, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of defendants Abex and Strick to reconsider its expert rulings: it corrected a clerical error and clarified that Herfel and McCloskey may authenticate Navy documents, but it kept its exclusion of their other testimony as duplicative.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (November 30, 2023). The court denied Ford's renewed motion for directed verdict, granted its motion to amend the judgment so that $6,888,500 in settlements offset the $275,000 verdict, interest and costs (leaving $0 owed), and granted in part and denied in part its objection to costs.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Smith v. Schlage Lock Company, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2021). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Schlage Lock Company and against Dorothy Smith, because there was no evidence Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos at the plant and, in any event, Schlage Lock was not liable for exposure incident to an independent contractor's work.
• Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1986). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants: directed verdicts for Raymark, Celotex and Pittsburgh Corning, a jury verdict for the other four defendants, and the challenged evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, against plaintiff Lohrmann.

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.

LAURA M. WALLS, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of ROBIE W. WALLS, Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-CV-98.

November 8, 2021.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.

Plaintiff alleges that her husband, Robie Walls, died of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos during his long career as a mechanic. (ECF No. 138 ¶¶ 2, 9.) Plaintiff sues a number of Defendants for Defective Design, Failure to Warn, Breach of Implied Warranty, Gross Negligence, Conspiracy, and Loss of Consortium. (Id. ¶¶ 49-98.) Before the Court are three motions: a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant DCo LLC ("DCo") against all claims, (ECF No. 261); a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Eaton Corp. ("Eaton") against all claims, (ECF No. 266), and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Morse Tec LLC ("Morse") against Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages only, (ECF No. 320). Plaintiff has not opposed these motions. For the reasons stated herein, these motions will be granted. I. BACKGROUND

Walls worked as a tractor-trailer truck fleet mechanic from 1960 to 2002. (Walls dep. I at 54:10-17.) His work exposed him to asbestos. (Id. at 51:8-52:16.) Walls was diagnosed with mesothelioma in September 2019, (Id. at 49:13-24), and died from the disease on October 15, 2020, (ECF Nos. 246-2; Maddox rep. at 2.)

Defendant DCo sold gaskets and clutches that were made with asbestos. (ECF Nos. 265-4 at 83:1-5, Walls dep. I at 250:2-251:4, 255:21-256:13.) Defendant Eaton supplied aftermarket truck axles that included asbestos brakes. (ECF No. 268-6 at 12:10-16, 19:9-14.) Defendant Morse is the successor-by-merger to Borg-Warner Corp., which manufactured clutches made with asbestos. (ECF No. 337-3 at 477:14-17.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate 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). "A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 568 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). "[I]n deciding a motion for summary judgment, a district court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. . . and to draw all reasonable inferences in his favor." Harris v. Pittman, 927 F.3d 266, 272 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 568). A court "cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations," Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 569, and thus must "usually" adopt "the [nonmovant's] version of the facts," even if it seems unlikely that the moving party would prevail at trial, Witt v. W. Va. State Police, Troop 2, 633 F.3d 272, 276 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007)).

Where the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial, the party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of "pointing out to the district court. . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party carries this burden, then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to point out "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (emphasis omitted). In so doing, "the nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence." Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013). Instead, the nonmoving party must support its assertions by "citing

to particular parts of. . . the record" or "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence. . . of a genuine dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Walls's exposure to asbestos from Defendant DCo was at most de

minimis

Defendant DCo argues that Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff's illness was caused by his exposure to DCo's products. (ECF Nos. 265 at 8-11.)

To show causation in an asbestos suit, a plaintiff must prove "that he was actually exposed to the alleged offending products," Smith v. Schlage Lock Co., LLC, 986 F.3d 482, 487 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Wilder v. Amatex Corp., 336 S.E.2d 66, 68 (N.C. 1985)), and "that exposure. . . was a substantial factor causing the plaintiff's injury." Finch v. Covil Corp., 972 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing Seraj v. Duberman, 789 S.E. 2d 551, 557-58 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)). The substantial factor test is met where a plaintiff presents "evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked." Id. at 512-13 (quoting Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162 (4th Cir. 1986). This is not an exacting standard, but "a de minimis rule" that requires plaintiff to "prove more than a casual or minimum contact with" defendant's product. Id. at 513 (quoting Lohrmann, 782 F.2d at 1162).

Here, the evidence suggests that Walls's exposure to asbestos from Defendant DCo's products was de minimis. While Walls testified that he occasionally worked with DCo's gasket and clutches, (Walls dep. I at 250:2-251:4, 255:21-256:14), he did not recall any instances of using DCo's gaskets and recalled using DCo's clutches only "once or twice," (Walls dep. II at 233:10-234:5). Further, he only saw new DCo clutches in the 1980s or 1990s, (id. at 240:5-12), and by then, the majority of DCo's clutches were made without asbestos, with asbestos completely phased out by 1984, (ECF No. 265-4 at 83:1-5, 36:7-13). Plaintiff does not oppose DCo's summary judgment motion and has not presented evidence to suggest that Wall's suffered greater exposure to asbestos from DCo's products. Thus, Plaintiff's claims against DCo fail as a matter of law, and Defendant DCo's motion will be granted.

B. Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that Walls ever worked with Eaton

products

Defendant Eaton also argues that Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff's illness was caused by his exposure to Eaton's products. (ECF Nos. 268 at 13-17.)

Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence to suggest that Walls's illness was caused by Defendant Eaton. Plaintiff initially alleged that Walls worked with Eaton truck axels, (ECF No. 138 ¶ 26); however, Walls did not testify to ever working with Eaton axels. (See Walls dep. III at 18:13-15.) Instead, Walls testified to working with original manufacturer breaks and axels, and aftermarket axels and breaks provided by a number of other companies. (See, e.g., Walls dep. I at 156:2-13, 160:16-18, 161:8-12, 201:20-202:15.) Plaintiff does not oppose Eaton's motion for summary judgment and has not presented evidence to suggest that Walls worked with Eaton's products. Thus, Plaintiff's claims against Eaton fail as a matter of law, and Defendant Eaton's motion will be granted.

C. Defendant Morse is entitled to Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's punitive

damages claim

Finally, Defendant Morse moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. (ECF No. 337 at 8-12.) Punitive damages may be awarded only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence of fraud, malice, of willful or wanton conduct. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15(a), (b). Willful and wanton conduct is defined as "the conscious and intentional disregard of and indifference to the rights and safety of others, which the defendant knows or should know is reasonably likely to result in injury, damage, or other harm." § 1D-5(7). Here, Morse argues that "Plaintiff has failed to produce

testimony or any internal documents demonstrating Borg-Warner's intent to ignore the hazards of asbestos." (ECF No. 337 at 10.) Plaintiff does not oppose Morse's motion and has not submitted evidence that the company engaged in fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct. Thus, Defendant Morse's motion will be granted, and summary judgment will be entered against Plaintiff on her punitive damages claim.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court enters the following:

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant DCo's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 261), is GRANTED, and DCo is dismissed from this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Eaton's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 266), is GRANTED, and Eaton is dismissed from this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Morse's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 320), is GRANTED.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• North Carolina asbestos laws
• North Carolina asbestos exposure sites