Plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010. He filed an action alleging he was exposed to asbestos when he worked at a Goodyear plant from 1968 until 1979, and died while the action was pending. The personal injury action was converted to a survival and wrongful death action. Defendant is a manufacturer of insulation. Defendant moved for summary judgment alleging there was no evidence plaintiff was exposed to asbestos for which it was responsible. In support of its motion, defendant attached plaintiff’s responses to discovery and submitted a declaration form its person most knowledgeable who said there was no information and there were no documents to suggest it ever performed any work or supplied any materials to be used at Goodyear’s plant. Two months after it filed its motion, defendant produced a document showing it had performed insulation work on steam piping at the Goodyear plant in 1974, so plaintiff amended his discovery responses. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the importance of the document because it did not identify specific dates when and locations within the Goodyear plant the asbestos work occurred. On appeal, defendant argued plaintiff merely showed a speculative possibility it was the outside contractor who performed the work in 1974. In reversing summary judgment, the appellate court said plaintiff’s evidence presented more than mere speculation about causation. (Ganoe v. Metaclad Insulation Corporation (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; July 21, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1577, [174 Cal.Rptr.3d 787].)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.