Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (W.D. Wash., Aug. 2, 2021)

Our plain-English summary of Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, August 2, 2021).

Charlotte Wineland and Susan Wineland, representing the estate of John Dale Wineland, sued several companies after he died in 2018 of mesothelioma. Mr. Wineland worked on Navy ships and in Navy offices from 1963 to 1984, mostly in engine rooms repairing machinery such as diesel engines, pumps, air compressors and valves. The plaintiffs alleged he was exposed to asbestos in products made by The William Powell Company while aboard the USS TUSCALOOSA from 1972 to 1974. Powell moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence that its products substantially contributed to his illness. The court applied maritime law. It found evidence that Powell valves were installed on the ship at some undefined time and that Mr. Wineland was exposed to significant asbestos dust in the engine room. But there was no evidence of where the Powell valves were installed or whether they were repaired or disturbed during his service, so the amount and duration of any exposure to Powell products could not be determined. The court granted summary judgment to Powell.

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, Western District of Washington
• Decided: August 2, 2021
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Washington

Outcome. The court granted The William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Powell, because they lacked evidence that exposure to Powell's products substantially contributed to Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma; the plaintiffs' own motion on Powell's affirmative defenses was denied as moot.

What the court held. Under maritime law, plaintiffs must show that exposure to a particular defendant's asbestos product was a substantial contributing factor, including evidence of the amount and duration of exposure; placing a defendant's products in the workplace and showing occasional exposure to asbestos dust is not enough.

Issues decided: Causation, Maritime Law and Navy Ships, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• John Dale Wineland: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• The William Powell Company (manufacturer)
• Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (manufacturer)
• Crane Co. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (November 10, 2020). The Court did not rule on Puget Sound Commerce Center's Daubert motion; it renoted the motion and allowed plaintiffs to file a sur-reply on the reliability of the experts' substantial contributing factor opinions.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (November 30, 2020). The court denied Todd Shipyard's (Puget Sound Commerce Center's) Daubert motion, so plaintiffs' experts Moore, Paskal, Zhang and Ay may testify.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (May 17, 2021). The district court granted Robertshaw Controls' motion for summary judgment against the Wineland plaintiffs, and denied plaintiffs' motion on Robertshaw's affirmative defenses as moot.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (May 17, 2021). The court granted Anchor/Darling Valve Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding they lacked evidence of substantial exposure to Anchor/Darling products or of a duty to warn about third-party replacement parts.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (July 19, 2021). The court granted Alfa Laval's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' negligence and strict liability claims, because they had no evidence that asbestos from Alfa Laval products was a substantial contributing factor in Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 5, 2021). The district court granted Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of Wineland's estate and wife because they lacked evidence that Warren Pumps products were a substantial contributing cause of his mesothelioma.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 5, 2021). The district court granted Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.'s renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, and denied the plaintiffs' motion on Cleaver-Brooks's affirmative defenses as moot.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 16, 2021). The court granted Imo Industries' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against it because they lacked evidence that exposure to Imo products was a substantial contributing factor in Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma and death.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (October 8, 2021). The court granted Carrier Corporation's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims because they did not show a triable issue on whether exposure to Carrier products substantially contributed to Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries (U.S. Supreme Court, 2019). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's judgment vacating summary judgment for the equipment manufacturers (Air and Liquid Systems, CBS, Foster Wheeler, Ingersoll Rand, General Electric) and sent the case back so the District Court could reconsider under the Court's own duty-to-warn test, which favored the veterans' families.
• McINDOE v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2016). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for shipbuilders Huntington Ingalls and Bath Iron Works against the heirs of James McIndoe, holding the warships were not products for strict liability and the heirs could not show substantial-factor causation.

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.

CHARLOTTE WINELAND, Individually, and SUSAN WINELAND, as Personal Representative of the

Estate of JOHN DALE WINELAND, deceased, Plaintiffs,

v.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants.

Cause No. C19-0793RSL.

August 2, 2021.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

ORDER GRANTING THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. #321)

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on "Defendant The William Powell Company's Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment." Dkt. # 321. Plaintiffs' decedent, John Dale Wineland, worked aboard a series of Navy ships and in Navy offices between 1963 and 1984. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Wineland was exposed to asbestos contained in Powell products while aboard the USS TUSCALOOSA between 1972 and 1974. Mr. Wineland worked primarily in the engine rooms of the ships to which he was assigned, repairing and maintaining machinery and equipment such as diesel engines, pumps, air compressors, and valves. Mr. Wineland developed mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease, and died in 2018. Plaintiffs assert that Powell is liable for Mr. Wineland's illness and death under theories of negligence and strict liability. Powell seeks summary dismissal of all of plaintiffs' claims, arguing that, under either Washington or maritime law, plaintiffs have failed to produce admissible evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that Mr. Wineland's exposure to asbestos from Powell products was a substantial contributing factor in his illness and death. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties[1] and taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the Court finds as follows:

Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact that would preclude the entry of judgment as a matter of law. The party seeking summary dismissal of the case "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion" (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)) and "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" that show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, it is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. The Court will "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445, 450 (9th Cir. 2018). Although the Court must reserve for the trier of fact genuine issues regarding credibility, the weight of the evidence, and legitimate inferences, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position will be insufficient" to avoid judgment. City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Factual disputes whose resolution would not affect the outcome of the suit are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina, 762 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2014). In other words, summary judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could return a verdict in its favor. Singh v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 925 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019). For the reasons set forth in the Order Granting Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that maritime law applies to plaintiffs' tort claims. To prevail on their negligence and strict liability claims, plaintiffs "must demonstrate, among other things, that [Mr. Wineland's] injuries were caused by exposure to asbestos that was attributable to [Powell's] conduct." McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2016). See also Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 986 (2019). To establish causation under maritime law, plaintiffs must show that Mr. Wineland's exposure to asbestos

from Powell products "was a substantial contributing factor in causing his injuries." McIndoe, 817 F.3d at 1174. Evidence of only minimal exposure to asbestos dust attributable to each defendant is insufficient: plaintiffs must provide "evidence regarding the amount of exposure to dust" attributable to Powell and, "critically, the duration of such exposure." Id. at 1176-77 (emphasis in original). The evidence must show "a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural." Id. at 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). "[M]ore is needed" than simply placing a defendant's products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was occasionally exposed to asbestos dust from those products. Id. at 1176-77.

While there is evidence that Powell "3 inch diameter 150 psi steel gate and globe stop check valves" were installed on the TUSCALOOSA during some undefined period (Dkt. # 424-2 at 20; see also Dkt. # 424-7 at 92-95) and that Mr. Wineland was exposed to significant levels of asbestos dust while working in the engine room of that vessel,[2] plaintiffs have not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he suffered a substantial exposure to asbestos dust from Powell products. Absent evidence regarding where the Powell valves were installed on the TUSCALOOSA and whether any of the potentially asbestos-containing valves were repaired or otherwise disturbed during Mr. Wineland's service on the vessel, it is impossible to draw any conclusions regarding whether Mr. Wineland was exposed to asbestos from Powell products, much less the amount or duration of the such exposure.

Plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation under maritime law. For all of the foregoing reasons, Powell's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 321) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Powell's affirmative defenses (Dkt. # 373) is DENIED as moot.

[1] This matter can be decided on the papers submitted in connection with this motion and the supplemental briefing regarding the applicability of maritime law. The parties' requests for oral argument are DENIED.

[2] Based on his extensive experience in the Navy and at naval shipyards, including the supervision of enginemen during the relevant time frame aboard the USS BRUMBY and the USS NEWPORT NEWS, Captain Arnold Moore opines that Mr. Wineland "likely. . . performed or very closely supervised repairs on all of the major machinery and many of the valves installed" in the enginee room of the TUSCALOOSA. Dkt. # 424-2 at 8. Captain Moore describes how these repairs would be carried out, including activities which would invariably create asbestos dust, including the removal of old, dried packing and gaskets and the cutting and installation of new packing and gasket materials Dkt. # 424-2 at 9. Plaintiffs' industrial hygienist, Steven Paskal, similarly opines that "it is virtually certain that [Mr. Wineland], and/or others in close proximity and/or in shared, enclosed airspaces, would have routinely removed and replaced gaskets and stem/shaft packing associated with. . . valves." Dkt. # 424-13 at 5. These activities would have exposed Mr. Wineland to an asbestos-containing aerosol that would remain suspended in air streams for extended periods of time at concentrations that ranged from hundreds to millions of times ambient pollution levels. Dkt. # 424-13 at 2-3 and 6. Gregory Bullinger, a shipmate of Mr. Wineland on the TUSCALOOSA, confirms that "work on the equipment in the engine room was regular, ongoing, and routine. We all removed and replaced packing and gaskets on the various equipment, including the valves, pumps, and ALCO diesel engines." Dkt. # 424-11 at 3.

Sources

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