In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. No.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
No Shepard’s Signal™
As of: November 5, 2021 1:06 PM Z
In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. No.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
November 4, 2021, Decided; November 4, 2021, Filed
E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-cv-3622; MDL DOCKET NO. 875
Reporter
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236 *
JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC, TWO LIBERTY
IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
LITIGATION (No. VI);JACKIE L. SULLIVAN, Executrix
of the Estate of JOHN L. SULLIVAN, Deceased, and For AURORA PUMP, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
widow in her own right, Plaintiff, v. A.W. CHESTERTON JAMES P. HADDEN, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY &
COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ANDERSON PA, THREE LOGAN SQUARE,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Core Terms For ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, Defendant (2:18-
cv-03622-ER): WILLIAM R. ADAMS, DICKIE
asbestos, coolers, distiller, products, summary
MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
judgment, lube oil, exposure, aboard, offers, successor
liability, genuine dispute, non-movant, insulated, For BATH IRON WORKS, GENERAL DYNAMICS,
responded, argues, material fact, deposition, successor, Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): MEGAN KATHLEEN
asserts, ships BAILEY, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI,
LLP, THREE LOGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Counsel: [*1] For JACKIE L. SULLIVAN EXECUTRIX
For BF GOODRICH COMPANY, Defendant (2:18-cv-
OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN L. SULLIVAN,
03622-ER): DAWN DEZII, MARGOLIS & EDELSTEIN,
DECEASED, AND WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT,
MT LAUREL, NJ; JEANINE D. CLARK, MARGOLIS
Plaintiff (2:18-cv-03622-ER): ROBERT E. PAUL, LEAD
EDELSTEIN, MT LAUREL, NJ.
ATTORNEY, PAUL REICH & MYERS, PC,
PHILADELPHIA, PA. For CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant [*2] (2:18-
cv-03622-ER): GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ
For A. W. CHESTERTON, INC., WEIL MCLAIN A
CAMPBELL LLC, TWO LIBERTY PL 28TH FL,
DIVISION OF THE MARLEY COMPANY, A WHOLLY
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED DOMINION
INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): For CBS CORPORATION FORMERLY
JOHN A. TURLIK, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
MAHONEY, PHILADELPHIA, PA. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendants (2:18-
cv-03622-ER): JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW
For ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, CRANE CO.,
FIRM PC, CENTRE SQUARE WEST TOWER,
Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): G. DANIEL BRUCH,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 2 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *2
For CLARK CONTROLLER CO., Defendant (2:18-cv- DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,pc,
03622-ER): EDWARD T. FINCH, LAVIN, O'NEIL, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO, PHILADELPHIA, PA; LA
For GARDNER DENVER NASH, Defendant (2:18-cv-
WANDA F. DYSON, LAVIN, O'NEIL, CEDRONE &
03622-ER): CAROLYN MICHELLE SCHWEIZER,
DISIPIO, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN &
For CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. A DIVISION OF AQUA- GOGGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
CHEM, INC., Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): LEAH A.
For GOULDS PUMPS INC., ITT BELL GOSSET, ITT
LEWIS, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, ONE S
INC., JOHNSON CONTROLS SUCCESSOR TO YORK,
PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA; SUSAN M.
Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): STEVEN A. LUXTON,
VALINIS, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT P.C.,
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, WASHINGTON,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
DC.
For COONEY BROTHERS, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-
For HERCULES, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
ER): PAUL F. WEISBEIN, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN,
PATRICK T. FINNEGAN, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C.,
THE CURTIS CENTER, FOURTH FLOOR,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For HOWDEN NORTH AMERICA, Defendant (2:18-cv-
For EDWARDS VALVE K/N/A FLOWSERVE,
03622-ER): ALBA E. ARRIAGA, RILEY, HEWITT,
Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): BERNARD L.
WITTE & ROMANO, P.C., PITTSBURGH, PA.
LEVINTHAL, GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC,
For IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as DE
PHILADELPHIA, PA; TERENCE M. PITT, GOLDFEIN &
LAVAL STEAM TURBINE COMPANY, Defendant (2:18-
JOSEPH, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
cv-03622-ER): JOSEPH I FONTAK, LEADER &
For FLOWSERVE (SUCCESSOR TO ANCHOR
BERKON LLP, [*4] PHILADELPHIA, PA.
DARLING), Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): BERNARD
For INGERSOLL-RAND & CO., Defendant (2:18-cv-
L. LEVINTHAL, GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC,
03622-ER): DANIEL J. RYAN, JR., MARSHALL
PHILADELPHIA, PA; JOHN C. [*3] MCMEEKIN,
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,pc,
RAWLE & HENDERSON, ONE SOUTH PENN
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For J.A. SEXAUER, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
For FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Defendant (2:18-cv-
TIMOTHY D. RAU, MARSHALL DENNEHY WARNER
03622-ER): SUSAN M. VALINIS, LEAD ATTORNEY,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT P.C.,
PHILADELPHIA, PA. For JENKINS PUMPS, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE
For GOODYEAR CANADA, GOODYEAR TIRE AND
SPINELLI HANNA LLP, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
RUBBER CO., Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): JOHN
C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON, ONE SOUTH For JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-
PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. ER): TIFFANY F. TURNER, DICKIE MCCAMEY &
CHILCOTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For GARDNER DENVER, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-
ER): CAROLYN MICHELLE SCHWEIZER, MARSHALL For KUNKLE VALVE, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 3 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *4
ERIC J. KADISH, MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY & JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC, TWO LIBERTY
ANDERSON P.A., THREE LOGAN SQUARE, PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For AURORA PUMP, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-
For MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING, ER): JAMES P. HADDEN, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY
Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): BASIL A. DISIPIO, & ANDERSON PA, THREE LOGAN SQUARE,
LAVIN, CEDRONE, GRAVER, BOYD & DISIPIO, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For BF GOODRICH COMPANY, Cross Defendant
For NORTHERN PUMP, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622- (2:18-cv-03622-ER): JEANINE D. CLARK, MARGOLIS
ER): W. MATTHEW REBER, KELLEY JASON EDELSTEIN, MT LAUREL, NJ; DAWN DEZII,
MCGUIRE & SPINELLI & HANNA, TWO LIBERTY MARGOLIS & EDELSTEIN, MT LAUREL, NJ.
PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, Cross
For SELBY BATTERSBY AND COMPANY N/K/A SB Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): THOMAS R. WASKOM,
DECKING, INC., Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): ALAN LEAD ATTORNEY, [*6] HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP,
R. GRIES, GIBBONS P.C., PHILADELPHIA, PA. RIVERFRONT PLAZA EAST TOWER, RICHMOND,
VA.
For SQUARE D COMPANY, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-
ER): CHRISTINA M. RIDEOUT, KELLEY JASONS For JOHNSON CONTROLS SUCCESSOR TO YORK,
MCGOWEN SPINELLI & HANNA, [*5] PHILADELPHIA, ITT BELL GOSSET, ITT INC., GOULDS PUMPS INC.,
PA; W. MATTHEW REBER, KELLEY JASON Cross Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): STEVEN A.
MCGUIRE & SPINELLI & HANNA, TWO LIBERTY LUXTON, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. WASHINGTON, DC.
For VIAD CORPORATION formerly known as DIAL For MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING,
CORP., Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): THOMAS J. Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): BASIL A.
JOHANSON, MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN DOHERTY & DISIPIO, LAVIN, CEDRONE, GRAVER, BOYD &
KELLY PC, PHILADELPHIA, PA; KEVIN O'BRIEN, DISIPIO, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY P.C.,
For SQUARE D COMPANY, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
03622-ER): CHRISTINA M. RIDEOUT, KELLEY
For WARREN PUMPS LLC, Defendant (2:18-cv-03622- JASONS MCGOWEN SPINELLI & HANNA,
ER): CHRISTIAN A WEIMANN, MARSHALL PHILADELPHIA, PA; W. MATTHEW REBER, KELLEY
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, JASON MCGUIRE & SPINELLI & HANNA, TWO
PHILADELPHIA, PA; JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, LIBERTY PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN &
For JACKIE L. SULLIVAN EXECUTRIX OF THE
GOGGIN,pc, PHILADELPHIA, PA; TIMOTHY D. RAU,
ESTATE OF JOHN L. SULLIVAN, DECEASED, AND
MARSHALL DENNEHY WARNER COLEMAN &
WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT, Cross Defendant (2:18-
GOGGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
cv-03622-ER): ROBERT E. PAUL, LEAD ATTORNEY,
For ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, CRANE CO., Cross PAUL REICH & MYERS, PC, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Claimants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): G. DANIEL BRUCH,
For ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, CRANE CO., Cross
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 4 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *6
Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): G. DANIEL BRUCH, For BF GOODRICH COMPANY, Cross Claimant (2:18-
JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC, TWO LIBERTY cv-03622-ER): JEANINE D. CLARK, MARGOLIS
PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. EDELSTEIN, MT LAUREL, NJ; DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS & EDELSTEIN, MT LAUREL, NJ.
For MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING,
Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): BASIL A. DISIPIO, For SELBY BATTERSBY AND [*8] COMPANY N/K/A
LAVIN, CEDRONE, GRAVER, BOYD & DISIPIO, SB DECKING, INC., Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-03622-
PHILADELPHIA, PA. ER): ALAN R. GRIES, GIBBONS P.C., PHILADELPHIA,
PA.
For ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, Cross Defendant
(2:18-cv-03622-ER): [*7] WILLIAM R. ADAMS, DICKIE For HOWDEN NORTH AMERICA, Cross Defendant
MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. (2:18-cv-03622-ER): ALBA E. ARRIAGA, RILEY,
HEWITT, WITTE & ROMANO, P.C., PITTSBURGH, PA.
For BATH IRON WORKS, GENERAL DYNAMICS,
Cross Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): MEGAN For CARRIER CORPORATION, Cross Claimant (2:18-
KATHLEEN BAILEY, GORDON REES SCULLY cv-03622-ER): GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ
MANSUKHANI, LLP, THREE LOGAN SQUARE, CAMPBELL LLC, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For FLOWSERVE (SUCCESSOR TO ANCHOR
For CARRIER CORPORATION, Cross Defendant (2:18- DARLING), Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
cv-03622-ER): GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ BERNARD L. LEVINTHAL, GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC,
CAMPBELL LLC, PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For CBS CORPORATION FORMERLY For SELBY BATTERSBY AND COMPANY N/K/A SB
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, DECKING, INC., Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendants ALAN R. GRIES, GIBBONS P.C., PHILADELPHIA, PA.
(2:18-cv-03622-ER): JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA
For WARREN PUMPS LLC, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-
LAW FIRM PC, CENTRE SQUARE WEST TOWER,
03622-ER): CHRISTIAN A WEIMANN, MARSHALL
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,
For EDWARDS VALVE K/N/A FLOWSERVE, Cross PHILADELPHIA, PA; JOSHUA D. SCHEETS,
Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): BERNARD L. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN &
LEVINTHAL, GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC, GOGGIN,pc, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PHILADELPHIA, PA; TERENCE M. PITT, GOLDFEIN &
For CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. A DIVISION OF AQUA-
JOSEPH, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
CHEM, INC., Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
For CLARK CONTROLLER CO., Cross Claimant (2:18- LEAH A. LEWIS, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT,
cv-03622-ER): EDWARD T. FINCH, LAVIN, O'NEIL, ONE S PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA; SUSAN
RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO, PHILADELPHIA, PA. M. VALINIS, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT P.C.,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For CLARK CONTROLLER CO., Cross Defendant
(2:18-cv-03622-ER): EDWARD T. FINCH, LAVIN, For INGERSOLL-RAND & CO., Cross Defendant (2:18-
O'NEIL, RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO, PHILADELPHIA, cv-03622-ER): DANIEL J. RYAN, JR., MARSHALL
PA. DENNEHEY [*9] WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,pc,
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 5 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *9
PHILADELPHIA, PA. MARSHALL DENNEHY WARNER COLEMAN &
GOGGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For GARDNER DENVER, Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-
03622-ER): CAROLYN MICHELLE SCHWEIZER, For WARREN PUMPS LLC, J.A. SEXAUER, Cross
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): TIMOTHY D. RAU,
GOGGIN,pc, PHILADELPHIA, PA. MARSHALL DENNEHY WARNER COLEMAN &
GOGGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. A DIVISION OF AQUA-
CHEM, INC., Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): For ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, Cross Claimant
LEAH A. LEWIS, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, (2:18-cv-03622-ER): WILLIAM R. ADAMS, DICKIE
ONE S PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA; SUSAN MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
M. VALINIS, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT P.C.,
For A. W. CHESTERTON, INC., WEIL MCLAIN A
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
DIVISION OF THE MARLEY COMPANY, A WHOLLY
For FLOWSERVE (SUCCESSOR TO ANCHOR OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED DOMINION
DARLING), GOODYEAR CANADA, GOODYEAR TIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-
AND RUBBER CO., Cross Defendants (2:18-cv-03622- ER): JOHN A. TURLIK, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE
ER): JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON, SINGER & MAHONEY, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
ONE SOUTH PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For FLOWSERVE (SUCCESSOR TO ANCHOR
For HERCULES, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): DARLING), Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-03622-ER):
PATRICK T. FINNEGAN, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C., BERNARD L. LEVINTHAL, GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC,
PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA, PA; JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE &
HENDERSON, ONE SOUTH PENN SQUARE,
For IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
03622-ER): JOSEPH I FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON
LLP, PHILADELPHIA, PA. For A. W. CHESTERTON, INC., WEIL MCLAIN A
DIVISION OF THE MARLEY COMPANY, A WHOLLY
For JOHN CRANE, INC., Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-
OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED DOMINION
03622-ER): TIFFANY F. TURNER, DICKIE MCCAMEY
INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Claimants (2:18-cv-03622-
& CHILCOTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
ER): JOHN A. TURLIK, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE
For INGERSOLL-RAND & CO., Cross Claimant (2:18-
SINGER & MAHONEY, PHILADELPHIA, [*11] PA.
cv-03622-ER): DANIEL J. RYAN, JR., MARSHALL
For KUNKLE VALVE, Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-03622-
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,pc,
ER): ERIC J. KADISH, MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY &
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
ANDERSON P.A., THREE LOGAN SQUARE,
For GARDNER DENVER, GARDNER DENVER NASH,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Cross Defendants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): [*10]
For VIAD CORPORATION, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-
CAROLYN MICHELLE SCHWEIZER, MARSHALL
03622-ER): THOMAS J. JOHANSON, MARKS O'NEILL
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,pc,
O'BRIEN DOHERTY & KELLY PC, PHILADELPHIA,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PA.
For WARREN PUMPS LLC, J.A. SEXAUER, Cross
For VIAD CORPORATION, Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-
Claimants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): TIMOTHY D. RAU,
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 6 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *11
03622-ER): KEVIN O'BRIEN, MARKS, O'NEILL, PHILADELPHIA, PA; TERENCE M. PITT, GOLDFEIN &
O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY P.C., PHILADELPHIA, JOSEPH, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PA.
For CLARK CONTROLLER CO., Cross Defendant
For FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Cross Defendant (2:18- (2:18-cv-03622-ER): LA WANDA F. DYSON, LAVIN,
cv-03622-ER): SUSAN M. VALINIS, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'NEIL, CEDRONE & DISIPIO, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT P.C.,
For SQUARE D COMPANY, Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
03622-ER): CHRISTINA M. RIDEOUT, KELLEY
For KUNKLE VALVE, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-03622- JASONS MCGOWEN SPINELLI & HANNA,
ER): ERIC J. KADISH, MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY & PHILADELPHIA, PA; W. MATTHEW REBER, KELLEY
ANDERSON P.A., THREE LOGAN SQUARE, JASON MCGUIRE & SPINELLI & HANNA, TWO
PHILADELPHIA, PA. LIBERTY PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For JENKINS PUMPS, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv- For CARRIER CORPORATION, Cross Defendant (2:18-
03622-ER): CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY cv-03622-ER): GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ
JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP, CAMPBELL LLC, TWO LIBERTY PL 28TH FL,
PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For VIAD CORPORATION, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv- For NORTHERN PUMP, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-
03622-ER): KEVIN O'BRIEN, MARKS, O'NEILL, 03622-ER): W. MATTHEW REBER, KELLEY JASON
O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY P.C., PHILADELPHIA, MCGUIRE & SPINELLI & HANNA, TWO LIBERTY
PA. PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For WARREN PUMPS LLC, Cross Claimant (2:18-cv- For NORTHERN PUMP, Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-
03622-ER): CHRISTIAN A WEIMANN, MARSHALL 03622-ER): W. MATTHEW REBER, [*13] KELLEY
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, JASON MCGUIRE & SPINELLI & HANNA, TWO
PHILADELPHIA, PA; JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, LIBERTY PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN &
For COONEY BROTHERS, Cross Claimant (2:18-cv-
GOGGIN,pc, PHILADELPHIA, [*12] PA.
03622-ER): PAUL F. WEISBEIN, MARGOLIS
For IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Claimant (2:18-cv- EDELSTEIN, THE CURTIS CENTER, FOURTH
03622-ER): JOSEPH I FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON FLOOR, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
LLP, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For COONEY BROTHERS, Cross Defendant (2:18-cv-
For BATH IRON WORKS, GENERAL DYNAMICS, 03622-ER): PAUL F. WEISBEIN, MARGOLIS
Cross Claimants (2:18-cv-03622-ER): MEGAN EDELSTEIN, THE CURTIS CENTER, FOURTH
KATHLEEN BAILEY, GORDON REES SCULLY FLOOR, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
MANSUKHANI, LLP, THREE LOGAN SQUARE,
For PROFESSOR FRANCIS E. MCGOVERN, Special
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Master (2:01-md-00875-ER): FRANCIS E. MC
For EDWARDS VALVE K/N/A FLOWSERVE, Cross GOVERN, LEAD ATTORNEY, THE UNIVERSITY OF
Claimant (2:18-cv-03622-ER): BERNARD L. ALABAMA, TUSCALOOSA, AL.
LEVINTHAL, GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC,
For PROFESSOR STEPHEN B. BURBANK, Special
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 7 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *13
Master (2:01-md-00875-ER): STEPHEN B. BURBANK, USS Charles F. Adams from 1977 until 1980. Mr.
LEAD ATTORNEY, UNIV OF PA LAW SCHOOL, Sullivan was found unfit for duty by a medical board on
PHILA, PA. October 16, 1979, and on January 10, 1980, he was
found ineligible for reenlistment because of a physical
Judges: EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
disqualification.
Opinion by: EDUARDO C. ROBRENO
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Opinion
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is
MEMORANDUM
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. 56(a). A fact is "material" if proof of its existence or non-
existence might affect the outcome of the litigation, and
Presently before the Court is the motion for summary
a dispute is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a
judgment filed by Defendant Viad Corporation ("Viad")
reasonable [*15] jury could return a verdict for the
regarding Plaintiff's claims arising out of John L.
nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
Sullivan's alleged occupational asbestos exposure. For
U.S. at 242 (1986); see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion.
380 (2007). The mere existence of some disputed facts
will not overcome a motion for summary judgment. Am.
I. BACKGROUND Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd., 584 F.3d 575, 581
(3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48).
Plaintiff Jackie L. Sullivan, as executrix for the estate of
In undertaking this analysis, the Court must view all
John L. Sullivan and as a widow in her own right,
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
alleged that Mr. Sullivan was exposed to asbestos-
Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.
containing products produced by the [*14] Griscom
Russell Company, Viad's alleged predecessor, and filed While the moving party bears the initial burden of
this action against Viad. showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact, meeting this obligation shifts the burden to the non-
Mr. Sullivan passed away on December 23, 2016. The
moving party who must "set forth specific facts showing
Plaintiff alleges that his death was caused by exposure
that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477
to products for which Viad is responsible while aboard
U.S. at 250. Inferences based on speculation or
the USS Charles F. Adams, the USS Saratoga, and the
conjecture do not create material fact disputes. Keating
USS Lexington.
v. Pittston City, 643 Fed. Appx. 219, 222 (3d Cir. 2016)
John L. Sullivan served in the United States Navy from (quoting Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 287 (3d Cir.
approximately 1967 until 1980. During that time, he 2014)).
accrued a total of seven years and eight months at sea,
serving on six different ships. Mr. Sullivan served
III. DISCUSSION
aboard the USS Lexington from 1970 to 1972, aboard
the USS Saratoga from 1975 to 1976, and aboard the Defendant Viad moves for summary judgment on two
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 8 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *15
grounds. First, Viad argues that Plaintiff has failed to manual for the USS Saratoga to show the presence of a
establish that an asbestos-containing product for which Griscom Russell lubricating oil cooler.
Viad is allegedly responsible was the cause of Mr.
However, Plaintiff [*17] offers no evidence that a
Sullivan's injuries. Second, Viad argues that it is not
Griscom Russell product contained asbestos. Plaintiff
liable as a successor to the Griscom Russell Company,
asserts that it "was standard for the Griscom Russell
the company that manufactured the products at issue.
distillers to contain asbestos." Pl. Mem. Opp. Summ. J.
Under maritime law, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the 2 (ECF No. 352 at 2). But the evidence offered in
plaintiff was exposed to the defendant's product and (2) support of this proposition is an operating manual for a
that the product was a substantial factor in causing the different type of distiller installed on DD666 Class
plaintiff's [*16] injury." Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Destroyers. Id., Ex. D (ECF No. 352-4). Not only is the
Supp. 2d 791, 797 (E.D. Pa. 2012). To do so, a plaintiff document dated decades prior to Plaintiff's Naval
can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence service, it is for an entirely different class of ship. It
that will support a reasonable inference that the offers no insight into the distillers present on the USS
defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing Charles F. Adams, USS Lexington, or USS Saratoga.
the plaintiff's injury. Damon v. Aireon Mfg. Corp., No. CV
The evidence offered to show the lube oil coolers
2:14-01954-ER, 2015 WL 9482256 at *1 fn.1 (E.D. Pa.
contained asbestos is even more remote. There,
Dec. 22, 2014).
Plaintiff simply asserts "high temperature uses" require
asbestos, citing a 1930 report for the Canadian Institute
A. Plaintiff Failed to Show that Defendant's Products of Occupational and Environmental Health. Id. at 3 (ECF
Contained Asbestos. No. 352 at 3), Ex. I (ECF No. 352-9). Plaintiff also points
to details of a General Electric oil cooler, and, reasoning
To prove that exposure to a defendant's product is the
by analogy, asserts that it is "highly unlikely" that
cause of the alleged injuries, a plaintiff must show that
Griscom Russell's oil coolers would lack asbestos if
the product contained asbestos. See, e.g., Brown, et al.
GE's contained it. Id. at 3 (ECF No. 352 at 3), Ex. R
v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., et al., No. 2:11-CV-60063,
(ECF No. 352-18). Again, this [*18] evidence says
2011 WL 6445091 at *1 fn.1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2011);
nothing about whether the specific Griscom Russell
Prange, et al. v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al., No. 09-06698,
products on the USS Lexington and USS Saratoga
2011 WL 4912833 at *1 fn.1 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2011).
contained asbestos.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine dispute as
to the material fact of the presence of asbestos in or on Plaintiff also provided an expert affidavit from Arthur W.
Griscom Russell products. Faherty. Id., Ex. P (ECF No. 352-16). But while Mr.
Faherty states that asbestos was present on Navy ships
Plaintiff points to several documents to support a
of that era generally, he does not identify any particular
conclusion that Griscom Russell products were present
piece of equipment as having asbestos. See Id., Ex. P.
on ships aboard which Mr. Sullivan served. The
at ¶¶18, 20-24 (ECF No. 352-16 at 3-4)(noting that
machinery and hull data for the USS Charles F. Adams,
"steam vessels of this era typically used asbestos," and
USS Lexington, and USS Saratoga state that Griscom
that deposed shipmates testified that "certain
Russell manufactured distilling plants that were aboard
machinery" contained asbestos (emphasis added)). The
those ships. Additionally, Plaintiff relies on an operation
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 9 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *18
affidavit says nothing about the Griscom Russell showing that defendant's product was present
distillers and lube oil coolers at issue. somewhere at plaintiff's place of work is insufficient." Id.
Finally, Plaintiff included deposition testimony by Mr. The depositions of Mr. Sullivan's shipmates on the USS
Charles Sawyer and Mr. Ricky Ykema, who served with Charles F. Adams [*20] and the USS Saratoga are the
Mr. Sullivan aboard the USS Charles F. Adams and only pieces of evidence offered that can place Mr.
USS Saratoga respectively. Mr. Sawyer testified in his Sullivan near alleged Griscom Russell products.
deposition that the distiller on the USS Charles F.
Mr. Sawyer served alongside Mr. Sullivan on the USS
Adams was insulated. Id., Ex. B. at 64:2-4 (ECF No.
Charles F. Adams, which is alleged to have had a
352-2 at 4). Mr. Ykema, similarly, testified that the lube
Griscom-Russell distiller onboard. In his deposition, Mr.
oil cooler was "[u]sually" insulated. Id., Ex. G at 94:20-
Sawyer was asked if the distiller on the USS Charles F.
95:5 (ECF No. 352-7 at 3). Neither Mr. Sawyer nor Mr.
Adams "was maintained or repaired." Pl. Mem. Opp.
Ykema, [*19] however, testified that this insulation
Summ. J., Ex. B. 64:15-16 (ECF No. 352-2 at 4). He
contained asbestos.
responded that "we did occasional maintenance," but
Walker v. Viad Corp., cited by the Plaintiff, offers a "that whole system was usually pretty reliable." Id. at
useful contrast. No. 16-215, 2019 WL 653216 (E.D. Pa. 64:19-20, 65:3-4 (ECF No. 352-2 at 4-5). When
Feb. 14, 2019). There, the plaintiff relied on testimony discussing valve repair, Sawyer was asked how often
by his former supervisor that not only was the product at they were repaired "during Jack's time". Id. at 85:11-12
issue insulated, but that "he now knows that the (ECF No. 352-2 at 10). Sawyer responded that the
insulation contained asbestos." Id. at *11. Here, Plaintiff repairs were "[p]robably pretty rare." Id. at 85:15. Finally,
offers no such evidence that could create a genuine when asked if the "insulation on the distiller" was
dispute as to the presence of asbestos in or on the disturbed, Sawyer responded "No, not — not the whole
relevant Griscom Russell products. time I was on there." Id. at 219:7-10 (ECF No. 352-2 at
27).
B. Plaintiff Failed to Show Substantial Exposure to Mr. Ykema served alongside Mr. Sullivan on the USS
Defendant's Products. Saratoga, which is alleged to have had both a Griscom-
Russell distiller and lube oil coolers. Mr. Ykema only
Even if there was a genuine dispute as to the presence
testified about a distiller on the USS Saratoga in a
of asbestos in or on Defendant's products, Plaintiff has
brief [*21] exchange. See Pl. Mem. Opp. Summ. J. Ex.
failed to demonstrate Mr. Sullivan's substantial exposure
G at 95-96 (ECF No. 352-7 at 3). He was asked "[w]hat
to a product attributable to the Defendant.
is a low-pressure three effect distilling plant," and he
To state a claim under maritime law, a plaintiff must responded that it's "for taking saltwater and turning it
show that such exposure was a "substantial factor" in into drinking water." Id. In the parts of the deposition
causing the plaintiff's injury. Conner, 842 F. Supp. 2d at included with the motion and response, Mr. Ykema does
797. Minimal exposure is insufficient, and a plaintiff not discuss what work, if any, was performed on the
must show substantial exposure over a substantial distiller or who performed the work. See Id.
period of time. Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust,
As for the lube oil coolers, Mr. Ykema was asked "[d]id
et al. 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005). A "mere
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 10 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *21
John maintain this particular product," and he Under both Pennsylvania and Delaware law, the general
responded "Uh-huh." Id. at 95. When Mr. Ykema was rule provides that purchasing a company's assets does
asked if he ever worked on the lube oil coolers, he not make the purchasing [*23] company liable for the
responded "All the time." Id. at 196 (ECF No. 352-7 at selling company's debts or obligations. Philadelphia
4). However, Mr. Ykema clarified that there was a "lube Elec. Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F.2d 303, 308-09 (3d
oil cooler for every piece of equipment," and that "in a Cir. 1985); Srinivasan Rajamani v. Revways Corp.,
machinery space . . . there could have been a dozen 2019 WL 169316 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
lube oil coolers, and they would vary in size from fairly
This general rule, however, is subject to the same four
small . . . up to very large." Id. at 196-97. Given that
exceptions in both states. These exceptions are: "where
there were "dozens" of coolers, it is not clear whether
(1) the purchaser of assets expressly or impliedly
the coolers being serviced were manufactured by
agrees to assume obligations of the transferor; (2) the
Griscom Russell. And while Mr. Ykema's testimony
transaction amounts to a consolidation or de facto
could establish that Mr. Sullivan maintained lube oil
merger; (3) the purchasing corporation is merely a
coolers, it does not establish that Mr. [*22] Sullivan
continuation of the transferor corporation; or (4) the
performed work on Griscom Russell coolers that
transaction is fraudulently entered into to escape
resulted in substantial exposure to asbestos.
liability, a successor corporation may be held
responsible for the debts and liabilities of its
C. Plaintiff Failed to Show that Defendant Viad Can Be predecessor." Philadelphia Elec. Co., 762 F.2d at 308-
Held Liable as a Successor to Griscom Russell. 09; see also Srinivasan, 2019 WL 169316 at *1.
In addition to denying that Griscom Russell products
At the summary judgment stage, if the non-movant
caused Mr. Sullivan's injuries, Viad argues that it is not
bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can
liable as a successor-in-interest to Griscom Russell.
meet its initial burden by showing that the non-movant
According to Viad—and Plaintiff does not appear to has "failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential
dispute its recounting of events—Griscom Russell was a element" of their case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
subsidiary of Hamilton-Thomas. In 1962, Baldwin-Lima- U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the moving party makes this
Hamilton, a Pennsylvania corporation, purchased 93.4% showing, the burden shifts "to the nonmovant who must
of Hamilton-Thomas's stock. In April of that year, set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial
Griscom Russell was dissolved and its plant and and may not rest upon the mere allegations,
equipment sold. In 1965, Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton speculations, unsupported assertions or denials of its
merged with Armour and Company, a Delaware pleadings." Conboy v. United States SBA, 992 F.3d 153,
corporation. The surviving company of the merger was 160 (3d Cir. 2021) (emphasis added).
Armour and Company, and Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton's
Here, there are two relevant transactions: (1) the 1962
assets and liabilities passed through to a wholly-owned
purchase of [*24] Hamilton-Thomas's stock by Baldwin-
subsidiary of the same name, though incorporated in
Lima-Hamilton; and (2) the 1965 merger of Baldwin-
Delaware. In 1972, Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton was
Lima-Hamilton with Armour and Company. For Viad to
renamed BLH, Inc., and in 1975 it was dissolved.
be liable for Griscom Russell's conduct, presumably
both transactions must escape the general rule of non-
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 11 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *24
liability by meeting one of the four exceptions. The only evidence that Plaintiff offers in support of a
finding of successor liability is Exhibit Q, which contains
Noting that Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating
assorted documents from other cases. Pl. Mem. Opp.
successor liability, Defendant Viad argues that beyond
Summ. J. Ex. Q (ECF No. 352-17). Among these are a
conclusory statements in the complaint, Plaintiff offers
Motion for Determination of Corporate Successorship as
no evidence that could establish that Viad can be held
a Matter of Law in Trujillo v. Atchison, Topkea and
liable as a successor to Griscom Russell.
Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. VA-129-CV (N.M. 13th [*26] Jud.
In response, Plaintiff does not offer any facts to support Dist. Valencia Cnty. 1997), as well as documents
a finding of successor liability. Rather, Plaintiff merely related to the merger of Baldwin Locomotive Works and
asserts that in Walker v. Viad, 2019 WL 653216 (E.D. Lima-Hamilton submitted with that motion. Id.
Pa. Feb. 14, 2019), Viad's motion for summary
At most, however, these documents could possibly—if
judgment on successor liability was denied and that "[it]
credited—establish that the liabilities of Baldwin-Lima-
is respectfully submitted the same result should apply
Hamilton passed to Armour and company. Plaintiff
here." Pl. Mem. Opp. Summ. J. 3-4 (ECF No. 352 at 3-
offers no facts that could establish that Baldwin-Lima-
4). Plaintiff also argues that Viad "was held liable for
Hamilton acquired the liabilities of Griscom Russel
Baldwin Lima Hamilton . . . in Arthur Kay," and that "the
through the purchase of Hamilton-Thomas stock.
analysis in those cases is adopted by reference." Id. at
4. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to make specific factual
allegations which could create a genuine dispute as to a
But as Defendant points out in their reply, the cases
material fact.
cited by Plaintiff do little to support a finding of
successor liability. In Walker, the court did [*25] not
even address Viad's successor liability argument for IV. CONCLUSION
procedural reasons. 2019 WL 653216 at *13-15. As for
Because Plaintiff has failed to show both that
Arthur Kay, Plaintiff provides only a Memorandum in
Defendant's products were the cause of Mr. Sullivan's
Opposition to Summary Judgment filed in Kay et al. v.
harm or that Viad can properly be held liable as a
84 Lumber et al., No. 091202712 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pl.
successor-in-interest to Griscom Russell, Viad is entitled
2010). That memo, without full citations or case names,
to summary judgment.
argues that Viad's purported admission of liability for
Griscom Russell's conduct in "Kurns" and "Wood" An appropriate order follows.
precludes summary judgment on the issue. But in
William Wood v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., et al., Civil
ORDER
Action No. 952-00230 (St. Louis Cir. Ct.), Viad's
stipulation was "for the purpose of this cause." Def. Rep. AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2021, upon
Br. Opp. Summ. J. Ex. B (ECF No. 372 at 24-25). And in consideration of the motion for summary judgment filed
Kurns v. A.W. Chesterton, while the plaintiff argued Viad by Defendant Viad Corporation (ECF No. 316) and the
was liable as a successor to Baldwin Locomotive, the responses and reply thereto, and for the reasons set
court's decision was based on federal preemption. 2009 forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
WL 249769 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2009). ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Elizabeth LautenbachPage 12 of 12
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236, *26
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eduardo C. [*27] Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
End of Document
Elizabeth LautenbachYou can also read
