PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has granted summary judgment to a company that employed a woman's husband at various naval shipyards over an 18-year period, finding that her 2020 death from mesothelioma and subsequent asbestos exposure claims failed due to a lack of causation.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Marilyn J. Horan dismissed claims against Eckel Industries, Inc. on May 27, ruling that no reasonable juror could find that an Eckel product caused Shirley A. Hilster’s mesothelioma.
“Plaintiffs initiated this asbestos-related personal injury action alleging that Shirley Hilster was exposed to asbestos from contact with her husband’s work clothes and person when greeting him home, laundering his work clothes, and spending time in his vehicle. Plaintiffs allege Mr. Charles Hilster was employed as a pipefitter, hydraulic pipefitter, new construction project manager and maintenance supervisor by various premises and naval shipyards from approximately 1958 to 1987 and 1989 to 1995,” Horan said.
“Plaintiffs allege that Shirley Hilster was exposed to asbestos from laundering her husband’s work clothing throughout their marriage (with the exception of when Mr. Hilster served in the Navy). Charles Hilster claimed that he was exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter apprentice, pipefitter, supervisor, foreman, piping supervisor, assistant project manager and project manager at various industrial facilities and naval shipyards beginning in 1957 and continuing into 1975. Mr. Hilster testified that during this time period, his wife Shirley would launder his work clothes and would have shaken out the clothing prior to washing it. Shirley Hilster was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma of the pleura in July 2020. She died of this disease on Oct. 11, 2020.”
After filing a lawsuit for strict liability, negligence, survival and wrongful death against a host of defendant companies, including Eckel, it filed a motion for summary judgment – which contended that the plaintiffs’ claims against it must be dismissed because “there is no evidence that Charles Hilster was exposed to asbestos from a product sold or supplied by Eckel” and that “as a supplier of products, had no reason to know in 1960 that bystander exposure to asbestos might cause disease.”
“Plaintiffs maintain that Mr. Hilster worked as a pipefitter at Electric Boat in Groton, Conn. for 13 years, between 1957 and 1970. During that period, Mr. Hilster asserts that he worked on pipes, pumps, valves and related equipment on nuclear submarines. Eckel supplied insulation to Electric Boat, and plaintiffs maintain that two documents from 1960 purportedly prove that Eckel supplied asbestos-containing materials, namely ‘Kaylo’ block and pipe covering insulation and 50,000 square feet of 80 percent asbestos cloth. Plaintiffs assert that such purported Eckel materials were assigned to a class of submarines upon which Mr. Hilster allegedly worked,” Horan said.
“In response, Eckel addresses the two purchase orders at issue and argues that, despite plaintiffs’ contentions, the record does not support that Mr. Hilster worked with, encountered, or was exposed to any of the asbestos containing materials described in the purchase orders. Eckel argues that the jury would have to engage in impermissible speculation in attempting to connect the products referenced in the purchase orders to Mr. Hilster.”
Horan pointed out that the parties agreed Connecticut law applies to the claims against Eckel, which dictates that “a plaintiff asserting a claim for asbestos-related injuries must identify an asbestos-containing product for which a defendant is responsible, prove that they have suffered damages and prove that the defendant’s asbestos-containing product was a substantial factor in causing their damages.”
“Here, the evidence and testimony of record do not connect an Eckel-supplied asbestos containing product to Mr. Hilster without the insertion of speculation. First, with regard to the Sept. 12, 1960 Purchase Order, such indicates that General Dynamics/Electric Boat sought to purchase four pieces of heat insulating block and nine feet of pipe insulation from Eckel. While plaintiffs assert that these materials were ‘for use on submarines,’ the material referenced in the Sept. 12, 1960, Purchase Order is labeled for use in a ‘Main Steam Mock- Up,” Horan stated.
“Mr. Hilster never testified to working on any main steam mock-up(s) nor have plaintiffs identified where such work was performed at Electric Boat. Thus, plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that Mr. Hilster was exposed to the Eckel material referenced in the Sept. 16, 1960 Purchase Order. Moreover, a handwritten notation on the Sept. 16, 1960 Purchase Order directs the material ‘to the South Yard carpenter shop.’ Plaintiffs have produced no evidence of record that Mr. Hilster worked at the South Yard carpenter shop in September 1960.”
Horan continued that while the Feb. 9, 1960 Purchase Order indicated that Electric Boat sought to purchase thermal asbestos cloth from Eckel, no evidence establishes the actual delivery of said materials and the plaintiffs have not established that Mr. Hilster worked with or around this ordered product.
“A notation on the Feb. 9, 1960 Purchase Order contained the following notation: ‘For EBDiv. Ref. Only: 589-597 requirements.’ Said notations purportedly indicate that the ordered cloth was for use on submarines within the 589-597 designated number range. The record establishes that Electric Boat built two submarines in this range, the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) and the USS Tullibee (SSN-597). According to plaintiffs’ naval expert, the Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Conn. constructed the Scorpion in the late 1950s, and it was launched on Dec. 29, 1959, prior to the Feb. 9, 1960 Purchase Order. Moreover, Mr. Hilster testified that, while the name ‘Scorpion’ was familiar to him, he could not recall any specific work he may have performed on this submarine,” Horan said.
“While the USS Tullibee was also built in Groton, Conn., Mr. Hilster never testified or otherwise identified working on this submarine; thus, the record does not support that he was exposed to any asbestos from the materials identified on the Feb. 9, 1960 Purchase Order. Thus, the plaintiffs have produced no evidence sufficient to establish any genuine issue of material fact that infers that Mr. Hilster was exposed to any asbestos containing material sold or supplied by Eckel. Without direct or even circumstantial evidence that Mr. Hilster was definitively in the presence of an Eckel product that contained asbestos, the jury would otherwise be invited to improperly speculate based upon such attenuated circumstances. Because no reasonable juror could find that an Eckel product caused Mrs. Hilster’s mesothelioma, Eckel is entitled to summary judgment.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01537
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-009581
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com