Opinion
No. 5:12-CV-00620-BR
07-08-2014
JANE E. MILLER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Wesley Miller, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING MANUFACTURING CO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motions for summary judgment of defendants Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Caterpillar Inc., Dana Companies LLC, Goulds Pumps, Inc., ITT Corporation f/k/a ITT Industries, Inc., FMC Corporation, McNally Industries, Inc. (sued as McNally Industries, LLC), Pneumo Abex LLC, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Paccar, Inc., and Ingersoll Rand Company (collectively "movants"). (DE ## 390, 392, 398, 399, 401, 402, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413, 415.) Neither plaintiff nor any defendant has filed a response to any of these motions, and the time within which to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth in movants' motions/memoranda, namely, plaintiff has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence that the decedent, Robert Wesley Miller, was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which any of the movants is liable, the motions are ALLOWED. See Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 716 (4th Cir. 1995) ("This Court has previously held that the plaintiff in a personal injury asbestos case 'must prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the product' containing asbestos in order to hold the manufacturer of that product liable. Instead, the plaintiff must present '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.'" (quoting Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir. 1986) (footnote omitted)); Yates v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., No. 5:12-CV-752-FL, 2014 WL 348301, at *4-5 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2014) (recognizing that asbestos-exposure torts arising from the plaintiff's service aboard U.S. Navy ships are governed by maritime law, which requires "a plaintiff to show 'for each defendant, that 1) he was exposed to the defendant's product, and 2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered.'" (quoting Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original)). Plaintiff's claims against movants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, all cross-claims against defendant Parker-Hannifin Corporation are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The decedent in this case was employed for a period of time aboard U.S. Navy ships. (See Mem., Ex. C, DE # 416-3.)
__________
W. Earl Britt
Senior U.S. District Judge