Hillyer et al v. Abb Inc. et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment

D. Del.July 15, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MARK E. HILLYER, and CAROL HILLYER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : C.A. No.: 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF DEFENDANT SPIRAX SARCO, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC /s/ Paul A. Bradley Paul A. Bradley (DE Bar ID No. 2156) Antoinette D. Hubbard (DE Bar ID No. 2308) 1201 North Market Street, Suite 900 P.O. Box 288 Wilmington, DE 19899-0288 Telephone: (302) 425-5177 Facsimile: (302) 425-0180 pab@maronmarvel.com adh@maronmarvel.com Attorneys for Defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc. Dated: July15, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 4203 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................. 1 II. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1 A. Mr. Hillyer Cannot Prevail on any of his Liability Theories Against Sarco ............. 2 Under Maritime Law As There is No Evidence That Mr. Hillyer Removed or Installed Any Asbestos-Containing Gaskets Supplied by It ..................................... 2 B. Plaintiffs as a Matter of Law Cannot Prove That Exposure to Two Sarco Steam Traps Was a Substantial Factor in Causing Them Harm .......................................... 4 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 7 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 4204 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arthur Dumas v. ABB Group, 2015 WL 5766460 ....................................................................................................................... 8 Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. PA. 2012) ......................................................................................... 5 Devries v. General Electric, DeVries v. General Electric, (MDL 875 , E.D. PA Civil Action No. 5:13- OO474-ER ) .................................................... 5, 6 Gitto v. A.W. Chesterton, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86473 ..................................................................................................... 7 Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. Ohio 2005) ..................................................................................... passim Quirin v. Lorrillard Tobacco Co, 17 F. Supp. 3d 760 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ............................................................................................ 6 Schwartz v. Abex, 106 F. Supp. 3d 626 (E.D. Pa. 2015) .......................................................................................... 5 Stark v Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 21 Fed. Appx. 371 (6th Cir. Ohio 2001) ..................................................................................... 7 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 4205 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, establish that Mr. Hillyer was exposed to asbestos as a result of gasket materials manufactured or supplied by Sarco. Moreover, Sarco is not legally responsible for any gasket materials manufactured or supplied by another company. Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Hillyer was exposed to asbestos from gaskets for which Sarco can be held legally responsible, it would be speculative on this record to conclude that any such exposure was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Hillyer’s lung cancer. II. ARGUMENT The undisputed record is that the only time that Mr. Hillyer worked on products of Spirax Sarco, Inc. (“Sarco”) was on the USS Carver, a submarine constructed approximately in 1966.1 Although there may have been various types of valves and steam traps associated with the steam system on the USS Carver, Mr. Hillyer clearly and unequivocally testified that the only Sarco products that he could recall being present on the USS Carver were two (2) Sarco stream traps.2 Indeed another manufacturers’ steam traps were the predominate type of steam traps used on the USS Carver.3 When asked both on direct and cross-examination, Mr. Hillyer stated that the source of any asbestos exposure from Sarco products was limited to the removal and replacement of gaskets on the flanges that connected two Sarco traps to the still and evaporator.4 While 1 He served on the USS Carver for only four years in the 1970s. See Mark E. Hillyer May 20, 2015, Video Deposition, P. 14, LL. 11-20; P.18, LL. 7-11. (Sarco Opening Brief Exhibit A). Mark E. Hillyer Discovery Deposition, Vol. II, May 21, 2015, P. 149, L. 24 - P. 150, L.1. (Exhibit A). 2 Mark E. Hillyer Discovery Deposition, Vol. I, May 20, 2015, P. 219, LL. 6-16, (Sarco Opening Brief, Exhibit C), and Mark E. Hillyer Discovery Deposition, Vol. II, May 21, 2015, P. 222, L. 25 – P. 223, L. 2. (Exhibit A). 3 Id. at P. 218, L. 22- P. 219, L. 11. (Exhibit A). 4 Mark E. Hillyer May 20, 2015, Video Deposition, P. 45, L. 5 - P. 46, 1, (Exhibit B) and Mark E. Hillyer Discovery Deposition, Vol. II, May 21, 2015, P. 221, LL. 3-9, (Sarco Opening Brief Exhibit C); P. 223, LL. 3-6. (Exhibit A). Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4206 2 Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Hillyer’s videotaped testimony was not tested as to the frequency of his work on the Sarco traps, Plaintiffs immediately admit that Mr. Hillyer was unaware of the number of times he worked on the Sarco traps.5 In any event, there is no evidence that Sarco supplied the original or replacement gaskets used on the flanges which are the subject of Mr. Hillyer’s exposure claims.6 A. Mr. Hillyer Cannot Prevail on any of his Liability Theories Against Sarco Under Maritime Law As There is No Evidence That Mr. Hillyer Removed or Installed Any Asbestos-Containing Gaskets Supplied by It Because of the absence of any evidence7 the that Sarco was the manufacturer or supplier of any flange gaskets that Mr. Hillyer installed or removed in relation to its two traps aboard the USS George Washington Carver, Sarco is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, under maritime law, there is no post- sale duty to warn about asbestos-containing replacement gaskets manufactured or supplied by others. The Sixth Circuit Court in Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. Ohio 2005) ruled that a valve manufacturer that manufactured and sold valves containing asbestos packing and asbestos-containing gaskets with metal windings was entitled to summary judgment and not liable as a matter of law to the claimant. In reaching that decision, the Court 5 See Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief in Opposition to The Motion for Summary of Judgment of Spirax Sarco, Inc. at P. 3, ¶ 2, L. 3. Plaintiffs refer to testimony which was elicited by Sarco counsel on cross-examination. Mark E. Hillyer Discovery Deposition, Vol. II, May 21, 2015, P. 219, LL. 17-19. (Exhibit A). 6 Mark E. Hillyer Discovery Deposition, Vol. II, May 21, 2015, P. 221, L. 18 - P. 222, L. 20. (Exhibit A). Garlock was the brand of gaskets used on flanged connections of the Sarco traps. 7 The unauthenticated documents concerning 2007 testing on what is purportedly a gasket from a Sarco trap of unknown origin is clearly inadmissible and irrelevant to this case. See Exhibit 4 of Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment of Spirax Sarco. This is especially true as Mr. Hillyer testified that he was exposed to asbestos as a result of flange gasket, not internal gasket work on the two Sarco traps on the USS George Washington Carver. Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 4207 3 reasoned: “Lindstrom almost certainly could not have handled the original packing or gasket material, and this fact compels the conclusion that any asbestos that he may have been exposed to in connection with a Henry Vogt product would be attributable to some other manufacturer”. Lindstrom at p. 495. The Court affirmed the lower court’s award of summary judgment for the valve manufacturer and ruled that it was not legally responsible for any replacement products manufactured or supplied by another. The decision was based on the bedrock principle that a company is not responsible for any alleged defect in another’s product. The Court stressed that the “product” was the equipment (i.e. the valve) and not any materials later applied even when they are installed in the regular and foreseeable maintenance or repair of the equipment. The same principle was followed in Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 791, 802 (E.D. PA. 2012) when the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that equipment manufacturers have a continuing duty to warn based on foreseeable replacements of asbestos-containing components. Lindstrom remains the controlling precedent in cases involving maritime claims. Plaintiffs’ argument that the precedential value of Lindstrom is limited and that Judge Robreno, who has relied on that seminal case in adjudicating numerous asbestos claims in Asbestos MDL Litigation, has recently retreated from its central reasoning is unfounded. First of all, in Schwartz v. Abex, 106 F. Supp. 3d 626 (E.D. Pa. 2015), Judge Robreno found a distinction between a manufacturer’s liability under negligence and strict liability theories only because the applicable substantive law in the case was that of Pennsylvania, for which legal duty is defined in terms of foreseeability. Moreover, in Devries v. General Electric, DeVries v. General Electric, (MDL 875 , E.D. PA Civil Action No. 5:13- OO474-ER ) another case relied upon by Plaintiffs, Judge Robreno, as directed by the Third Circuit of Appeals, issued a memorandum clarifying his summary Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 4208 4 judgment award to defendants. In so doing, Judge Robreno powerfully outlined the reasons why no liability should attach for third party replacement parts under either a strict liability or negligence theory pursuant to maritime law.8 Sarco will not purport in these limited pages to summarize the extensive legal analysis contained in that decision, as a copy is attached for the Court. However Sarco notes that Judge Robreno concluded that uniformity in the “law of the sea” is a paramount principle and that federal courts have scrupulously applied a uniform analysis of claimants’ strict liability and negligence allegations. Moreover, Judge Robreno concluded that the rulings of various state courts that a manufacturer may be held liable for another’s asbestos-containing materials of “are creatures of state law- and determination of state policy- that are not applicable under maritime law”. (Devries at P. 24) Finally, Judge Robreno analyzes Quirin v. Lorrillard Tobacco Co, 17 F. Supp. 3d 760 (N.D. Ill. 2014), a case cited by Plaintiffs for the proposition that there is a post-duty to warn under maritime law. Judge Robreno concludes the Quirin decision was based on a misconception that Lindstrom did not address failure to warn claims and thus is an improper reading of maritime law. B. Plaintiffs as a Matter of Law Cannot Prove That Exposure to Two Sarco Steam Traps Was a Substantial Factor in Causing Them Harm Sarco is also entitled to summary judgment on the issues of causation. Over the course of his long Naval career, Mr. Hillyer identified only two Sarco steam traps on which he worked and he associated any asbestos exposure with his removal and replacement of flange gaskets. Mr. Hillyer could not state the number of times he worked on those two traps over the four years he served on the USS Carver. In an effort to buttress their claim that Sarco is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of substantial factor, Plaintiffs repeatedly refer to Mr. Hillyer’s work generally on valves and traps but the issue of substantial factor is measured by alleged exposure 8 (Exhibit C). Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 4209 5 attributable to an individual defendant. [W]here a plaintiff relies on proof of exposure to establish that a product was a substantial factor in causing injury, the plaintiff must show ‘a high enough exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural” Lindstrom (quoting Stark v Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 21 Fed. Appx. 371, 375- 376 (6th Cir. Ohio 2001). Applying these principles to the case at hand, there is simply no evidence that the flange gaskets which Mr. Hillyer removed or installed were manufactured or supplied by Sarco. Moreover, Mr. Hillyer’s lack of knowledge regarding the number of times he worked with flange gaskets in connection with the two Sarco steam traps present on the USS Washington Carver undercuts Plaintiffs’ argument that a material issue exists as to whether the traps constituted a substantial factor in causing his lung cancer even if one were to argue that Sarco was responsible for gaskets which it neither manufactured or supplied. The cases cited by Plaintiffs for the proposition that summary judgment should not be granted when there is circumstantial evidence of exposure are inapposite. They involve the construction and application of various states’ laws by trial judges ruling on motions for summary judgment on facts very different from those developed against Sarco in this case. However, Sarco would be amiss if it did not point out that Plaintiff’s assertion that it was the subject of the ruling in Gitto v. A.W. Chesterton, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86473,9 a case in which the Court declined to rule on the issue of liability of another valve manufacturer for a third party’s replacement parts.10 Moreover, In Gitto, supra, Plaintiff presented evidence through an 9 (Exhibit D). 10 The decision involved the denial of a motion for summary judgment of a valve manufacturer and not Sarco. Sarco does not argue that this was an intentional misstatement on the part of Plaintiffs’ counsel and notes that it appears that the reference to Sarco as a party was likely the result of an automated global name change error. Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 4210 6 expert regarding the presence of the manufacturer-defendant’s valves on each of the ships on which the plaintiff served, the destructive nature of the work that the plaintiff performed in relation to the defendant’s valves and there was uncontroverted evidence from the Plaintiff, also supported by expert testimony that the plaintiff had installed that same manufacturer’s valves on which he later performed maintenance and repairs. Such circumstantial evidence is lacking here and any alleged exposure about which Mr. Hillyer complains in regard to Sarco traps arose from gaskets which were not incorporated in the product at issue and not supplied by it. Plaintiff’s reliance on this Court’s denial of a pump’s motion for summary judgment in the case of Arthur Dumas v. ABB Group, 2015 WL 576646011 is equally misplaced. In Dumas, the Court found there was circumstantial evidence that the specific pump defendant supplied the original asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in its pumps and that while serving on the Tidewater the plaintiff conducted twenty to twenty-five repairs which exposed him to that pump manufacturer’s gasket material. Here there is no evidence that Mr. Hillyer installed gasket materials manufactured or supplied by Sarco. Also unlike the plaintiff in Dumas, Mr. Hillyer admitted that he did not know how many times he worked on the equipment which was the alleged source of his exposure. In summary, there is no direct evidence, testimonial or documentary, nor circumstantial evidence sufficient to create a material issue of fact with regard to exposure as a result of a product of Sarco. Moreover, under established maritime precedent, Sarco is not liable for the asbestos-containing materials later applied by another or used in conjunction with its products as replacement parts. Finally, on the undisputed record of this case, any alleged exposure as a 11 (Exhibit D). Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 4211 7 result of Sarco products or acts does not rise to the substantial factor standard under maritime law. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc. respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs as to all counts. Respectfully submitted, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC /s/ Paul A. Bradley Paul A. Bradley (DE Bar ID No. 2156) Antoinette D. Hubbard (DE Bar ID No. 2308) 1201 North Market Street, Suite 900 P.O. Box 288 Wilmington, DE 19899-0288 Telephone: (302) 425-5177 Facsimile: (302) 425-0180 pab@maronmarvel.com adh@maronmarvel.com Attorneys for Defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc. Dated: July 15, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150 Filed 07/15/16 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 4212 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 4213 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 119 1 VOLUME II PAGES: 119-355 2 EXHIBITS: NONE 3 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 5 C.A. NO. N15C-03-181 ASB 6 7 ****************************** MARK E. HILLYER and CAROL * 8 HILLYER, his wife, * Plaintiffs, * 9 * vs. * 10 * ABB, INC., as successor to * 11 ITE CIRCUIT BREAKERS, INC., * et al., * 12 Defendants * ****************************** 13 14 15 16 CONTINUED DISCOVERY DEPOSITION OF MARK HILLYER 17 Holiday Inn Norwich 10 Laura Boulevard 18 Norwich, Connecticut THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015, 10:00 A.M. 19 20 21 22 ------- Linda Horne, CSR, RPR, LSR #482 ------ 23 HG LITIGATION SERVICES 2777 N. Stemmon Freeway 24 Dallas, Texas 75207 1.800.656.DEPO 25 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 4214 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 149 1 globe valves? 2 A. Yes. The ones I'm talking about are 3 globe valves. 4 Q. What was the size range of the Crane 5 valves, the Crane globe valves on the GEORGE 6 WASHINGTON CARVER? 7 A. I don't know all the specific sizes, 8 but the ones I'm referring to are half inch to 9 two inch. 10 Q. What were those valves made of? 11 A. Carbon steel, body and bonnet, brass 12 bonnet bushing and usually Stellite-faced seat 13 on the disc and a steel or stainless steel stem 14 with Acme threads. 15 Q. Obviously, there was a very hot liquid 16 going through the steam lines. Do you know the 17 temperature of the liquid? 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. Do you know the age or maintenance 20 history of any of the Crane valves you worked 21 on? 22 A. No, they were installed in initial 23 construction, new construction. 24 Q. For the CARVER, that was 1966, I 25 think? Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 4215 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 150 1 A. I think. 2 Q. You have no reason to think there was 3 an original gasket or packing still in the 4 Crane valves when you first worked on them, 5 correct? 6 MS. RATCLIFFE: Objection. 7 A. I didn't hear that. 8 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 9 the original gaskets and packing would still be 10 in the Crane valves when you first worked on 11 them four to eight years later? 12 A. I don't know the maintenance history 13 of each valve. I can't answer that. 14 Q. I think you said that the valves 15 underwent preventative maintenance once per 16 year? 17 A. No. I said that relief valves and 18 sentinel valves underwent testing every year or 19 every other year. 20 Q. How often did valves on steam lines 21 undergo testing or maintenance? 22 A. The valves, they were not. They 23 underwent corrective maintenance when there was 24 a problem. We didn't periodically replace 25 packing or gaskets for any other reason other Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4216 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 218 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you know if during that time period 3 you did any work on any Copes-Vulcan valves as 4 opposed to any other manufacturer? 5 A. I don't remember. 6 Q. You don't know either way, sir? 7 A. I don't remember. 8 Q. Have we now discussed all the ways 9 that you recall working on Copes-Vulcan 10 products? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I also represent a company named 13 Spirax Sarco. I believe in response to your 14 lawyer's questions yesterday, one brand of 15 steam trap you identified was Sarco. Do you 16 recall that, sir? 17 A. Yes, ma'am. 18 Q. And your work related to Sarco steam 19 traps occurred on the CARVER; do you recall 20 that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You also identified Yarway as a brand 23 of steam traps that -- as a brand of steam 24 traps which were present on the CARVER; it 25 that correct? Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 4217 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 219 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Were there other brands of steam traps 3 other than Yarway and Sarco present on the 4 CARVER? 5 A. Not to my knowledge. 6 Q. Can you give me a breakdown as to the 7 percentage of Yarway steam traps present on the 8 CARVER as opposed to the Sarco steam traps 9 you've identified? 10 A. All the steam traps in the steam 11 system that I was aware of are Yarways. The 12 two Sarcos were on the still and the 13 evaporator. 14 Q. So there were a total of two on the 15 CARVER. Did you work on those two? 16 A. Yes, ma'am. 17 Q. Do you recall the number of times you 18 worked on the Sarco steam traps? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Can you tell me the dimensions of the 21 two Sarco steam traps present on the CARVER? 22 A. 8 to 10 inches tall, rounded back and 23 3 to 4 inches wide. 24 Q. Can you identify the model number of 25 these steam traps? Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 4218 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 221 1 A. They were flanged into the brine 2 piping. 3 Q. And yesterday when you testified as to 4 potential asbestos materials with which you 5 worked in relation to the steam traps, you 6 mentioned flange gaskets; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is it limited to flange gaskets, sir? 9 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 10 Q. Do you recall the size of the flanges 11 on the two Sarco steam traps present on the 12 CARVER? 13 A. No, ma'am. 14 Q. And when you removed the flange 15 gaskets which you associate with the two Sarco 16 steam traps, you had no basis -- let me restate 17 it. I'm getting into double negatives here. 18 When you removed the flange gaskets 19 which you associate with the Sarco steam traps, 20 you lacked knowledge as to the manufacturer of 21 the gasketing material, correct? 22 MS. RATCLIFFE: Objection to form. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. * You don't know what the manufacturer 25 of the gaskets -- flange gaskets which you Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 4219 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 222 1 removed in relationship to the Sarco steam 2 traps were, correct? 3 * MS. RATCLIFFE: Asked and answered. 4 A. * Yes. 5 MS. HUBBARD: You objected to form. 6 Then I restated it. You can't have it both 7 ways. 8 MS. RATCLIFFE: He's already answered 9 that. I didn't direct him not to answer. 10 MS. HUBBARD: Can you read back that 11 exchange? 12 *(Testimony read back.) 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. My answer was yes, I don't know. 15 Q. Thank you, sir. 16 Now, with respect to the gasket 17 material which you used to replace the flange 18 gaskets, that gasket material was manufactured 19 by Garlock, I believe? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You don't recall the number of times 22 you worked on the flanges on the two Sarco 23 traps, correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Now, was the CARVER the only vessel in Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 4220 MARK HILLYER - DISCOVERY - VOLUME 2 HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 223 1 which you recall working on Sarco steam traps? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Have we discussed all the ways in 4 which you recall working with or around Sarco 5 steam traps? 6 A. Yes. 7 MS. HUBBARD: I'll look at my notes. 8 I think I'm done. I'll turn you over to the 9 next person, but thank you for your time, sir. 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 11 * * * * * 12 EXAMINATION CONDUCTED 13 BY MS. POMEROY: 14 Q. Mr. Hillyer, my name is Maureen 15 Pomeroy. I represent a couple of defendants in 16 this case. I want to ask you a couple of 17 general questions to clear things up in my mind 18 from your testimony yesterday and today. 19 You described a submarine service 20 station that you were assigned to from 1993 to 21 1996. Is that the Naval support submarine 22 facility? 23 A. NSSF, Naval Submarine Support 24 Facility. 25 Q. Was that located in Groton, Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 4221 EXHIBIT B Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-2 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 4222 MARK HILLYER - VIDEO HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 1 1 VOLUME I PAGES: 1-100 2 EXHIBITS: NONE 3 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 5 C.A. NO. N15C-03-181 ASB 6 7 ****************************** MARK E. HILLYER and CAROL * 8 HILLYER, his wife, * Plaintiffs, * 9 * vs. * 10 * ABB, INC., as successor to * 11 ITE CIRCUIT BREAKERS, INC., * et al., * 12 Defendants * ****************************** 13 14 15 16 17 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MARK HILLYER Holiday Inn Norwich 18 10 Laura Boulevard Norwich, Connecticut 19 WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015, 10:02 A.M. 20 21 22 23 ------- Linda Horne, CSR, RPR, LSR #482 ------ HG LITIGATION SERVICES 24 2777 N. Stemmon Freeway Dallas, Texas 75207 25 1.800.656.DEPO Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-2 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 4223 MARK HILLYER - VIDEO HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 45 1 Q. How were the steam traps connected to 2 the system? 3 A. Most of the manifolds are -- I can't 4 say that. Some are welded; some are flanged. 5 Q. Okay. Do you recall the Sarco traps 6 being welded or flanged? 7 A. Flanged. The traps upstream of main 8 steam 1 and 2 are welded. The ones downstream 9 are flanged. 10 Q. Do you recall ever having to do any 11 work with the Sarco steam traps? 12 A. Preventative maintenance, disassemble 13 and clean. 14 Q. What would you clean; what would you 15 be cleaning? 16 A. The ball float and the shaft had a 17 bearing on it, and that needed to be cleaned 18 and lubricated. And it was a cycle S on it, I 19 think. I don't remember. 20 Q. Okay. Do you believe you were exposed 21 to asbestos in any way from this work? 22 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection to form. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. How so? 25 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection. Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-2 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 4224 MARK HILLYER - VIDEO HGLITIGATION.COM HG LITIGATION SERVICES Page 46 1 A. Flanged gaskets, which were asbestos. 2 Q. Would you clean these flanges the same 3 way that you testified to earlier with regard 4 to the valves and pumps? 5 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection to form. 6 A. Yeah, the flanged gaskets for sheet 7 product have a phonographic finish. It needs 8 to be cleaned to get all the fibers out so that 9 you can get a good bite on the new product. 10 Q. * Did that process create dust? 11 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection to form. 12 MS. RATCLIFFE: Can you just read back 13 my question? 14 *(Question read back.) 15 A. Yes, it did. 16 Q. Did you breathe that dust? 17 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you believe that breathing that 20 dust caused you to be exposed to asbestos? 21 A. Yes. 22 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection to form. 23 Q. You also testified that there was a 24 ripout of asbestos lagging on the Yarway traps, 25 correct? Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-2 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 4225 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 4226 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 4227 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 4228 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4229 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 4230 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 4231 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 4232 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 4233 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 4234 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 4235 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 4236 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 4237 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 4238 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 4239 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 4240 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 4241 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 4242 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 4243 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: 4244 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 20 of 25 PageID #: 4245 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 21 of 25 PageID #: 4246 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 22 of 25 PageID #: 4247 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 23 of 25 PageID #: 4248 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: 4249 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 25 of 25 PageID #: 4250 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 46 PageID #: 4251 Gitto v. A.W. Chesterton Co. (In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig.) United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania June 28, 2010, Decided; June 30, 2010, Filed, Entered MDL DOCKET NO. 875; EDPA No. 07-73417 Reporter 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI);This Documents relates to SALVATORE GITTO and PHYLLIS GITTO v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., INC., et al. Subsequent History: Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68000 (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2010) Later proceeding at Gitto v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86473 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 19, 2010) Adopted by, Summary judgment denied by, Objection overruled by Gitto v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86489 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 20, 2010) Prior History: [*1] Transfer from: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. No. 07-4771. Curry v. Am. Stds. (In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83205 (E.D. Pa., June 21, 2010) Core Terms valves, Deposition, ships, asbestos, exposure, insulation, removing, foundations, summary judgment motion, shipfitter, installed, Recommendation, recalled, genuine, aboard, manufacturer, causation, drilled, exposed to asbestos, summary judgment, boiler room, asbestos-containing, coverings, products, holes, piece of equipment, maritime law, engine room, materials, mothballs Counsel: For SALVATORE GITTO, PHYLLIS GITTO, Plaintiffs: CARMEN VICTORIA ST. GEORGE, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEVY PHILLIPS & KONIGSBERG, LLP, NEW YORK, NY; JEROME H. BLOCK, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEVY PHILLIPS & KONIGSBERG, LLP, NEW YORK, NY; SHARON J. ZINNS, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEVY PHILLIPS KONIGSBERG, NEW YORK, NY; JAMES M KRAMER, LEVY PHILLIPS & KONLGSBERG, NEW YORK, NY. For AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ITS DIVISION THE TRANE COMPANY, Defendant: LISA M. PASCARELLA, LEAD ATTORNEY, PEHLIVANIAN BRAATEN & PASCARELLA, MANASQUAN, NJ. For AURORA PUMP COMPANY, Defendant: AMANDA D. SUMMERLIN, FORMAN PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ & TARDY LLP, JACKSON, MS; PATRICK T. FINNEGAN, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C., PHILADELPHIA, PA; PAUL B. KERRIGAN, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER PC, PHILADELPHIA, PA; THOMAS W. TARDY, III, FORMAN PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ & TARDY LLP, JACKSON, MS. For BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A SUBSIDIARY OF AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORP., Defendant: JOHN S. HOWARTH, LEAD ATTORNEY, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA, PHILADELPHIA, PA. For CARRIER CORPORATION, ALSO KNOWN AS BRYANT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant: JOAN P. DEPFER, MARSHALL [*2] DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN, PHILADELPHIA, PA. For CRANE CO., Defendant: MICHAEL J. ZUKOWSKI, LEAD ATTORNEY, K&L GATES, PITTSBURGH, PA. For DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant: SHAWANE L. LEE, CLEMENTE MUELLER, P.A., PHILADELPHIA, PA. For GOULDS PUMPS INCORPORATED, Defendant: RAGHU N. BANDLAMUDI, CULLEN & DYKMAN LLP, BROOKLYN, NY. For LESLIE CONTROLS, INC., Defendant: RAGHU N. BANDLAMUDI, CULLEN & DYKMAN LLP, BROOKLYN, NY. For QUAKER CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Defendant: STEPHEN A. MANUELE, FELDMAN KIEFFER & HERMAN LLP, BUFFALO, NY. For THE NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY, Defendant: PATRICK T. FINNEGAN, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C., Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 46 PageID #: 4252 Page 2 of 8 PHILADELPHIA, PA; PAUL B. KERRIGAN, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER PC, PHILADELPHIA, PA. For THE TRANE COMPANY, Defendant: LISA M. PASCARELLA, LEAD ATTORNEY, PEHLIVANIAN BRAATEN & PASCARELLA, MANASQUAN, NJ. Judges: M. FAITH ANGELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Opinion by: M. FAITH ANGELL Opinion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT CRANE CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT By: Angell, M.J. Plaintiffs Salvatore Gitto and his wife, Phyllis Gitto ("Plaintiffs") filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging that Mr. Gitto developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials [*3] while employed by the U.S. Navy as a shipfitter mechanic and shipbuilding and hull machinery inspector. 1 Relevant to the present summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs allege that during his thirty-five years at the Brooklyn Navy Yard Mr. Gitto performed new construction on ships, as well as construction to rehabilitate ships that were "taken out of mothballs" or re-commissioned, and during the construction process he was exposed to asbestos through valves supplied by Crane Co. See Plaintiffs' Opposition to Crane's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 62] 2 at ¶¶ 3- 28. Presently before the Court is summary judgment motion filed by Crane Co. on January 8, 2010 [Doc. 44], Plaintiffs' response in opposition [Doc. 62], Crane Co.'s reply '[Doc. 73], Plaintiffs' sur-reply [Doc. 77], and Plaintiffs' supplemental brief in opposition [Doc. 88]. Oral argument was heard by the above referenced [*4] Magistrate Judges on May 27, 2010. For the reasons which follow, we recommend that Crane Co's motion for summary judgment be denied to the extent Crane Co. seeks summary judgment on the elements of exposure and causation. 3 1 The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on October 22, 2007, transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be included in the multi- district Asbestos Liability Litigation (MDL 875)[Docs. 1,2.] 2 Hereinafter "Plaintiffs' response in opposition." I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Salvatore Gitto was born on November 5, 1932 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2007. He passed away on July 3, 2007. Plaintiffs' sur-reply at ¶ 5. Mr. Gitto began working for the United States Navy in April 1951 as an apprentice shipfitter at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. June 7, 2007 Gitto Video Deposition at 13-14. 4 He was drafted into the United States Army in December 1952 and served for two years. When he was honorably discharged from the active in December 1954, Mr. Gitto returned to Brooklyn New Yard and completed his shipfitter apprenticeship program in April 1957. Id. at 15-16. Mr. Gitto continued to work as a shipfitter until he was promoted to shipbuilding and hull machinery inspector approximately four years [*5] later. Id. at 17-18 and May 15, 2007 Gitto Deposition at 116-120. 5 He worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard until it closed in May 1996. Volume I: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 119-120. Mr. Gitto analogized the job of a shipfitter to that of a carpenter in the construction industry. In new construction, the shipfitters built the foundations of the ship - they "put the flooring in, put the walls in, put the ceiling in, put the doors on, put the lath, put the staircases in, and generally it's work done with structural steel." Gitto Video Deposition at 14-15. 6 According to Mr. Gitto, after the foundation [*6] was completed, the shipfitters were on "standby" in the "general 3 The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno referred the motion to this panel for a Report and Recommendation solely as to issues raising product identification and causation. All other issues are reserved to Judge Robreno. 4 Attached as Exhibit "F" to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief [Doc. 88- 6], hereinafter "Gitto Video Deposition." 5 Attached as Exhibit "G" to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief [Doc. 88- 7], hereinafter "Volume I: Gitto Discovery Deposition." Mr. Gitto testified that after completing his shipfitter apprenticeship, he completed four mechanic grades before being promoted to shipfitter and hull inspector, each mechanic grade lasted approximately one year, and that promotions were given on a competitive basis, so it was difficult to pinpoint a specific date. Volume I: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 118-119. 6 All equipment on a Navy ship was mounted in some sort of foundation - "it was the way they secured it to the ship, otherwise it would move around, roll around, become a danger to a person's health or damage of the equipment. [It] had to be secured." Id. at 15,20. It was the shipfitter's responsibility to see that foundations were in the accurate location, that they served the function they were meant to serve, and that the foundations were consistent with blueprints and specifications. Id. at 18. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337, *2 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 46 PageID #: 4253 Page 3 of 8 area" when new pieces of equipment were actually installed by the other tradesmen (machinist, electricians and pipe fitters). The new pieces of equipment, the pipes and wires were covered with the protective material and insulation which Mr. Gitto believes contained abestos, Mr. Gitto testified that while the new pieces of equipment were being insulated, the air conditions were "usually dusty and dirty and filled with fibers." Id. at 21-22, 32 and Volume I: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 145-148. When ships were re-commissioned or "taken out of mothballs," shipfitters were also responsible for checking and removing old foundations, [*7] building up new foundations, and doing repairs and other work associated with the rebuilding of deteriorated pieces in order to return the ship to serviceable condition. Gitto Video Deposition at 34. According to Mr. Gitto, in removing the old foundations he used an acetylene torch to burn the bottom of the foundation to seperate it from the hull. He was also responsible for removing insulation on old equipment and removing old piping "which was loaded with asbestos." Id. at 27-28 and May 16, 2007 Gitto Discovery Deposition at 204, 289. 7 Mr. Gitto was present in the vicinity when other tradesmen (electricians, pipe fitters and laggers) removed or repaired old equipment and installed new replacement equipment. Volume 2: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 31-32. 8 Because the old equipment was being scrapped, the removal process was "usually in a destructive manner [*8] [...] they [the other tradesman] would come along with their acetylene torches, burn the stuff off, chip it off, rip it off with a hammer. Whatever was the easiest way for them to remove it. "During the removal process, Mr. Gitto testified that the air conditions were "Horrible. Dusty, dirty. Fibers, could breathe the dust in. The room was so bad you could hardly see your hand in front of your face. The ventilation was poor." Id. at 28-29. After the foundation was finished, Mr. Gitto was present when outside machinist drilled a series of holes on the equipment into the foundation. Gitto Video Deposition at 31 and Volume 2: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 168 ("Having a driller drill any necessary holes, mounting holes.") 91010 7 Hereinafter "Volume 2: Gitto Discovery Deposition." This transcript is attached to Plaintiffs' Reply as Exhibit "C" [Doc. 77-3]. See Volume 1: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 62 ("I'm sure I was involved with the removal of old pumps, removal of foundations and installation of new foundations that were required on new equipment.") 8 See id. at 170 ("The spaces that I worked in had various types of equipment that were covered in asbestos. Asbestos was being added, removed, shifted around. I was present when that was being done.") Relevant to Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, Mr. Gitto testified that equipment installed and insulated included valves, that throughout his career at the Brooklyn Navy Yard he built foundations for valves, and that he was present when valves were being "broken down" and replaced. Id. at 20, 23, 26, 29. See Volume 1: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 64-65 (Mr. Gitto testified that valves required extra foundational support). Mr. Gitto recalled the name "Vickers valves" but was unable to identify any other valve manufacturer by name. Volume 2: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 171, 189-90. 11 Mr. Gitto was able to recall a variety of ships on which he performed working including the USS Frankling D. Roosevelt, USS Independence, and USS New Jersey. Volume 1: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 81-82. Mr. Gitto testified that he performed new construction on the USS 9 At oral argument, Plaintiffs' Counsel argued that it was Mr. Gitto's job "to actually drill into these pieces to secure them to these foundations [...] and that Mr. Gitto testified to "years work of exposure to different types of valves being ripped out, being reinsulated [*9] insulated, him drilling into them." N.T. 5/27/10 at 25,27. According to Counsel, Mr. Gitto actually drilled through the internal insulation of the valves. Id. at 33. Later, Counsel clarified that Mr. Gitto testified that he was exposed to the inner portions of the valves, and that he was "vague" on the point of whether he drilled through the internal valve insulation. Id. at 44. Having read all of the deposition testimony, we conclude that a fair reading of Mr. Gitto's testimony is that he was in the vicinity when valves were being repaired and/or removed, but there is no reference to Mr. Gitto drilling through the internal insulation of valves. 10 After he was promoted to shipbuilding and hull inspector, Mr. Gitto described his responsibilities as follows: "Basically the functions of an inspector is called upon to inspect installations that were completed to see that they were built to drawings and specifications. I was called upon to witness various types of tests that were ongoing, whether they would have a structural test where they would apply forces or a lug or bag or something, see how it would break. In terms of functional testing, I might be called upon to witness the functions [*10] of a particular piece of equipment, read gauges, record data, see that it fell within the tolerance. Stop a test if it was failing, notify the proper personnel. Responsible for the safety of a particular test that was going on. Functions similar to that and sign off if it was satisfactorily accomplished." Volume 1: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 120-21. 11 See Gitto Video Deposition at 36; June 7, 2007 Gitto Discovery Deposition [hereinafter "Volume 3: Gitto Discovery Deposition"] at 369("[...] I recall seeing Vickers valves on other ships.") This transcript is attached to Plaintiffs' Reply as Exhibit [*11] "A" [Doc. 77-1]. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337, *6 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 46 PageID #: 4254 Page 4 of 8 Independence, and that he was involved in construction to rehabilitate the USS FDR and USS New Jersey when they were brought out of mothballs. Id. at 122-124. Mr. Gitto recalled spending about a month or less on the USS New Jersey. However, he had no recollection of how long he was on the USS FDR. Id. at 124-125. He testified that he spent about six months aboard he USS Independence and that he was "heavily involved" in the construction of the number two outboard elevator. Volume 2: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 174-175. On the USS FDR Mr. Gitto recalled working in the engine and boiler rooms and assisting in the removal of old equipment. Id. at 186-188, 190. He believed that he was exposed to asbestos "[j]ust by virtue of me being in the area while I was doing my work on building up foundations, gaining access, repairing holes, damage that was done, being in the general vicinity where work was being done [*12] by other tradesman." Id. at 191. Mr. Gitto recalled that machinists in the boiler rooms of the USS FDR were removing and installing equipment, specifically compressors, pumps and valves. Id. at 192.193. On the USS New Jersey, Mr. Gitto specifically recalled "removing a lot of the coverings on the various holes in the bottom of the ship, which they sealed off when they put it in mothballs. All those covers had to be removed and made sure they were clear." Volume I: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 122-24. When asked how he believed he was exposed to asbestos on the USS New Jersey Mr. Gitto testified: "I'm sure I worked in the boiler rooms and the engine rooms. I told you one of the jobs was removing these covers that covered various holes and that brought me inside and outside the ship.[...] In order to inspect the job was done properly, I had to go inside the vessel and the space where the equipment was. Being there, I was exposed to any asbestos that was on the equipment or being worked on in the area." Id. at 129-130. 12 In terms of "specifically touching" asbestos-containing materials. Mr. Gitto testified that on the USS New Jersey he "might have" handled these materials if he had "a [*13] need to remove a piece of insulation to lay out something or inspect something."Id. at 139. Mr. Gitto believed that he was exposed to asbestos in relation to valves, "[j]ust being in the surrounding area while the work was being performed, while insulation, coverings were being removed and reinstalled, The environment was dusty, dirty. There was no respiratory protection provided." Volume 1: 12 Mr. Gitto confirmed that he had a specific recollection of working in the boiler rooms and the engine rooms of the USS New Jersey. Id. at 131-32. Gitto Discovery Deposition at 65. He was "involved in the inspection, relocation, if necessary, of foundations for these valves, which encompassed and [sic] removing and reinstalling valve covering, pipe coverings." Volume 3: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 372-374. Mr. Gitto was presebt when valves were replaced in ships takes out of mothballs, and he observed "valves being broken down before they'd be removed from ships." The breaking down process included "anything from an acetylene torch to chipping hammer to more." Gitto Video Deposition at 26, 29-30. Mr. Gitto also testified about working aboard ships, primarily destroyers, that were being overhauled [*14] under a Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization ("FRAM") Program, Volume II: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 196-205. He specifically remembered performing FRAM work aboard the USS Mackennzie and USS Putnam. Gitto Video Deposition at 33-34. During FRAM overhauls, like the de-mothballing process, equipment was removed and new equipment reinstalled. Volume II: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 205. Mr. Gitto would enter the engine spaces and boiler rooms and assist in the removal and installation of new pieces of equipment, and testified that his asbestos exposure was similar to the work performed aboard the other ships. Id. at 204-05. Plaintiff's expert, Arnold P. Moore, PE, a retired naval captain and professional engineer with experience in shipboard engineering and the repair and overhaul of Navy ships, has provided an expert report. September 22, 2009 Moore Expert Report. 13 In his report, Mr. Moore explained that Crane Co. supplied valves for steam systems on CVB 41 Class Aircraft Carriers, and manufactured steam, feed water and fuel oil system valves installed in fire and engine rooms. Based on industry practice, Mr. Moore opined that "the bodies of valves used in steam, feed and other [*15] hot systems were normally insulated with asbestos containing insulation materials and flanged connections to those valves used in hot systems normally contained gaskets with asbestos content. In addition, it is Mr. Moore's opinion "that all of these valves were manufactured with asbestos stem packing." Id. at 8. In reviewing Mr. Gitto's testimony, Mr. Moore was able to identify the following ships on which Mr. Gitto worked as ones on which Crane Co. valves were present: USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, USS Independence and USS New Jersey. Id. Mr. Moore also stated that Crane Co. valves, specifically steam, feed water, and fuel oil system valves, were installed in the fire and engine rooms aboard the USS Mackenzie and USS Putnam. Id. Plaintiffs' medical expert, Arthur L. Frank, MD., Ph.D., has 13 Attached as Exhibit "D" to Plaintiffs' Reply [Doc. 77-4]. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337, *11 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 5 of 46 PageID #: 4255 Page 5 of 8 opined, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that "Mr. Gitto developed a malignant pleural mesothelioma which caused his death as a result of his exposure to asbestos." October 6, 2009 Frank Expert Report at 1. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARDS. A. Standard for Summary Judgment. Summary [*16] judgment may be granted only " if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue materials fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A factual dispute is "material" if it might affect the outcome of these under governing law. Id. The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). After the moving party has met its initial burden, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "Speculation, conclusory allegations and mere denials are insufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact." Boykins v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 78 F.Supp.2d 402, 408 (E.D. Pa. 2000). The evidence presented must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Lang v. New York Life Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 118, 119 (3d Cir. 1983). B. [*17] Exposure and Causation Under New York Law. This case was originally filed in New York state court and Plaintiffs argue that New York law applies because the record clearly shows that New York law has the most significant relationship" to Mr. Gitto's claims. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief at 2. Defendant Crane Co. argues that maritime law applies because Mr. Gitto's alleged exposure occurred while on Navy ships in navigable waters. Crane Co.'s Post- Argument June 1, 2010 Letter Addressing Choice of Law at p. 2. It is Crane Co's position that there is no conflict of law because under both New York and maritime law, a manufacturer is not liable for products it neither made nor sold. Id. Accepting for the sake of deciding this summary judgment motion that a potential choice of law question is presented as 14 Attached as Exhibit "J" to Plaintiffs' Response [Doc. 62-10]. to whether New York law or maritime law controls, we must apply New York choice of laws. Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40(2d Cir. 1993)(stating that a transferee court involved in multi-district litigation is required to "apply the same state substantive law, including choice of law rules, that would have been applied in the jurisdiction in which the case was filed"). Under New York law, [*18] a conflict analysis is unnecessary and New York Law will apply where the applicable law from each jurisdiction is the same. See International Business Machines Corp v. Liberty Mut. Ins, Co., 363 F.3d 137, 143-44 (2d Cir. 2004)(applying New York law). With respect to causation, New York law and maritime law are essentially the same. Compare Singleton Stone v. Amquip Corp., Civ No. 98- cv-4691, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14048, 2000 WL 1448817 at *3 (E.D. Pa, September 29, 2000)(applying "substantial contributing factor" test in products liability case under maritime law) with Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285-86 (2d Cir. 1990) (explaining that New York law requires plaintiff to prove that exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product was a substantial factor in causing his or her injury). We therefore conclude that New York Law governs our consideration of Defendant Crane Co.'s motion as it relates to causation. To establish proximate cause on an asbestos claim under New York law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he was exposed to the defendant's product and that is more likely than not that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing his injury. See Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285-86 (2nd Cir. 1990). [*19] Jurors are instructed that an act or omission is a "substantial factor . . . if it had such an effect in producing the [injury] that reasonable men or women would regard it as a cause of the [injury]." Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 527, 529 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y. App.Div. 1988). A particular defendant's product need not be the sole cause of injury. Nevertheless, a plaintiff must produce evidence identifying each [defendant's] product as being a factor in his injury." Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1286. Such evidence may be circumstantial, and a plaintiff may meet his or her burden by presenting the evidence of coworkers or expert witnesses. See id. at 1285(relying on testimony of coworker to conclude plaintiff met burden). The presence of sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment is, of course, a case-specific inquiry. Decisions issuing from the state and federal courts of New York guide of consideration of whether the evidence in this 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337, *15 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 6 of 46 PageID #: 4256 Page 6 of 8 case is sufficient for a jury to find exposure and causation. 15 III. DISCUSSION Defendant Crane Co. moves for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiffs have failed to draw the requisite causal link between a Crane Co. product an Mr. Gitto's alleged asbestos exposure Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 44] at 1-2. [*22] Plaintiffs counter that they have presented "overwhelming evidence of Mr. Gitto's exposure to Crane's asbestos-containing valves. When reviewed cohesively, Decedent's deposition testimony, Naval records of the ships on which Plaintiff worked, the expert testimony of Arnold P. Moore, and Crane's own admissions of its valves' asbestos content and the ships to which ot supplied valves clearly demonstrate a genuine issue of face requiring this Court to 15 Compare e.g., Perdicaro v. A.O. Smith Prods. (In re New York County Asbestos Litig.), 52 A.D. 3d 300, 860 N.Y.S.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)(holding evidence was insufficient to raise a triable fact issue as to [*20] exposure to asbestos-containing insulation in that plaintiff offered no evidence to suggest that the insulation "he saw in use at the time he was purportedly present [at work site] was asbestos-based"); Comeau v. W.R. Grace & Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litig.), 216 A.D.2d 79, 628 N.Y.S.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)(holding evidence was insufficient in that plaintiff failed to provide information as to nature, time period, and specific location of his work or evidence that defendant's product was placed in "zone of plaintiff's exposure:); Diel v. Flintkote Co.., 204 A.D.2d 53, 611 N.Y.S.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)(holding evidence of exposure was insufficient in that testimony of co-worker did not reflect how often bags of defendant's product were at work site, where these bags were placed, or if this bags were ever opened); Cawein v. Flintkote Co., 203 A.D.2d 105, 610 N.Y.S.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)(holding evidence of exposure was insufficient in that co- worker did not testify that he ever saw bags of defendant's product opened or being used); Farrell v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., Civ. No. 88- 8136, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6733, 1991 WL 89632 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 1991)(holding evidence that plaintiff worked at a job site where defendant's asbestos products were used, [*21] without more, was insufficient); with e.g., Caruolo v. John Crane, Inc., 226 F.3d 46, 52- 53 (2d Cir. 2000)(holding plaintiff's testimony as to visible asbestos dust emanating from defendant's products and expert study were sufficient to support jury finding); In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig., 971 F.2d 831, 837 (2d Cir. 1992)(holding evidence that plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos while working at Brooklyn Navy Yard and evidence that defendant's asbestos containing products contributed to the asbestos in the air at that location was sufficient); O'Brien v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., 944 F.2d 69, 71-72 (2d Cir. 1991)("Given testimony that asbestos products were used interchangeably on virtually all of the warships under construction in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, [plaintiff's mesothelioma] might reasonably be attributed in part to exposure to [defendant]'s products."); Reid v, Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 A.D.2d 462, 463, 622 N.Y.S.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)(same). deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment." Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition [Doc. 62] at 7. We agree with Plaintiff. It is undisputed that in his deposition testimony Mr. Gitto did not associate Crane Co. with a manufacturer of valves, or with any other product he worked on or near throughout his employment at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Mr. Gitto only recalled the name "Vickers" as the manufacturer of valves aboard the ships on which he worked. These facts, in and of themselves, are not determinative. See Constantinides v. Alfa Laval, 09-70613, April 26, 2010 Report and Recommendation on Defendant Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 151] at 7 (it would be unfair to expect or require a plaintiff who spent fifteen months as low-ranking [*23] crewman aboard a naval vessel more than five decades ago to specifically identify the manufacturer of valves. Mr. Gitto specifically recalled being present when valves were removed and broken down on re-commissioned ships, and testified that the air condition in the machine rooms during this process was extremely dusty causing him to breathe in fibers. In addition, Plaintiffs point to evidence that Crane Co. supplied valves to Naval ships generically, and specifically to several ships on which Mr. Gitto worked, and Crane Co.'s admissions that its valves incorporated asbestos- containing internal components. Given the fact that Mr. Gitto was present when valves were being broken down in the machine rooms of various ships, and at least three of the ships Mr. Gitto specifically recalled working on (USS New Jersey, USS FDR, USS Independence) contained Crane Co. valves with asbestos components, there is a strong interference that Mr. Gitto was exposed to Crane Co.'s asbestos containing valves. However, we need not rely on only this inference. Mr. Gitto described performing FRAM work onboard the USS Putnam and the USS Mackenzie, specifically performing work in the engine and boiler rooms during [*24] the overhauls and comparing the conditions to those of the ships he had previously described. Volume II: Gitto Discovery Deposition at 204-05; Gitto Video Deposition at 34-35. Mr. Moore has stated that several types of Crane Co. valves- steam, feed water, and fuel oil system valves-were installed in the fire and engine rooms aboard the USS Putnam and USS Mackenzie. We find that this evidence is sufficient to defeat Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the question of whether asbestos exposure from Crane Co. valves was a factor in Mr. Gitto's injury. IV. CONCLUSION We Conclude that Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337, *19 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 7 of 46 PageID #: 4257 Page 7 of 8 exposure and causation as to Crane Co. and, therefore, recommend that this Defendant's motion for summary judgment be denied as to this issue. RECOMMENDATION AND NOW, this 28 day of June 2010, it is RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that Crane Co.'s summary judgment motion be DENIED with respect to the issues that are within the scope of Judge Robreno's referral order. The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. See Local Civ. Rule 72.1 [*25] Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. 16 BY THE COURT: /s/ M. Faith Angell M. FAITH ANGELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 Magistrate Judges hey and Strawbridge join in this determination. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337, *24 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 8 of 46 PageID #: 4258 Page 8 of 8 End of Document 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95337, *25 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 9 of 46 PageID #: 4259 Dumas v. ABB Grp., Inc. (In re Asbestos Litig.) United States District Court for the District of Delaware September 30, 2015, Decided; September 30, 2015, Filed Civil Action No. 13-229-SLR-SRF Reporter 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291; 2015 WL 5766460 IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. , Plaintiff, v. ABB GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. Subsequent History: Adopted by, Objection overruled by, Summary judgment granted by, Summary judgment denied by Dumas v. ABB Group, Inc. (In re Asbestos Litig.), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11805 (D. Del., Jan. 26, 2016) Prior History: Dumas v. ABB Group, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4149 (D. Del., Jan. 9, 2014) Core Terms pumps, insulation, aboard, asbestos-containing, exposure, asbestos, packing, summary judgment motion, manufactured, relies, products, gaskets, valves, supplied, exposed to asbestos, alleges, injuries, substantial factor, ship, exposed, repair, identification, replacement, components, machinery, dust, genuine issue of material fact, issue of material fact, summary judgment, asbestos dust Counsel: [*1] For Arthur Dumas, Plaintiff: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Raeann Warner, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas C. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, successor in interest to, Bailey Meter Company, Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, successor in interest to, Foster Wheeler Corp., Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., [*2] Individually and as, successor in interest to, Delaval Turbine Inc., Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, formerly known as, Viacom Inc., Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. [*3] For Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant: Donald Robert Kinsley, LEAD ATTORNEY, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Paul A. Bradley, LEAD Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 10 of 46 PageID #: 4260 Page 2 of 37 ATTORNEY, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, successor in interest to, Quimby Pump Company, Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ITT Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Foster Engineering Company, Defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Electrolux Home Products [*4] Inc., Individually, and as successor to Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, [*5] DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, [*6] Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *3 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 11 of 46 PageID #: 4261 Page 3 of 37 For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually [*7] and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Claimant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, [*8] DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually [*9] and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Claimant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *6 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 12 of 46 PageID #: 4262 Page 4 of 37 For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, [*10] Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, [*11] Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Claimant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, [*12] Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *9 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 13 of 46 PageID #: 4263 Page 5 of 37 For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and [*13] as, Cross Claimant: Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, [*14] DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, [*15] Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas C. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Claimant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *12 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 14 of 46 PageID #: 4264 Page 6 of 37 For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross [*16] Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: [*17] Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Claimant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, [*18] Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas C. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *15 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 15 of 46 PageID #: 4265 Page 7 of 37 For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, [*19] DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Claimant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, [*20] Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross [*21] Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley [*22] & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *18 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 16 of 46 PageID #: 4266 Page 8 of 37 For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Claimant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest [*23] to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: [*24] Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to [*25] Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *22 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 17 of 46 PageID #: 4267 Page 9 of 37 For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: [*26] Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, [*27] Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Claimant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina [*28] McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *25 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 18 of 46 PageID #: 4268 Page 10 of 37 For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, [*29] Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Claimant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, [*30] DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman [*31] & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually [*32] and as, Cross Claimant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *28 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 19 of 46 PageID #: 4269 Page 11 of 37 & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster [*33] Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; [*34] Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz [*35] Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *32 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 20 of 46 PageID #: 4270 Page 12 of 37 For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon [*36] Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Cross Claimant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald [*37] Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, [*38] Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *35 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 21 of 46 PageID #: 4271 Page 13 of 37 Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman [*39] & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, [*40] Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson [*41] LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Claimant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, [*42] DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *38 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 22 of 46 PageID #: 4272 Page 14 of 37 For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, [*43] Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Claimant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually [*44] and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually [*45] and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *42 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 23 of 46 PageID #: 4273 Page 15 of 37 Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della [*46] Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Claimant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross [*47] Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas C. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi [*48] LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *45 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 24 of 46 PageID #: 4274 Page 16 of 37 LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Claimant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross [*49] Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas C. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries [*50] Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, [*51] Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *48 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 25 of 46 PageID #: 4275 Page 17 of 37 For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, [*52] Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson [*53] LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Claimant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: [*54] Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas C. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, [*55] Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *51 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 26 of 46 PageID #: 4276 Page 18 of 37 LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Claimant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: [*56] Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Arthur Dumas, Cross Defendant: Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas C. Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, [*57] Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, [*58] Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *55 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 27 of 46 PageID #: 4277 Page 19 of 37 Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, [*59] Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as [*60] successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: [*61] Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *58 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 28 of 46 PageID #: 4278 Page 20 of 37 & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross [*62] Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Claimant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, [*63] Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz [*64] Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *61 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 29 of 46 PageID #: 4279 Page 21 of 37 For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, [*65] Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Claimant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Defendant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. For CBS Corporation, a Delaware [*66] Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan [*67] Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. For ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey Meter Company, Cross Claimant: Oleh V. Bilynsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Brien Firm, Wilmington, DE. For Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson [*68] LLC, Wilmington, DE; Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Buffalo Pumps Inc., Cross Defendant: Barbara Anne Fruehauf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE; Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, Wilmington, DE. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *64 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 30 of 46 PageID #: 4280 Page 22 of 37 For CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Crane Co., Cross Defendant: Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream Turbine Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Electrolux Home Products Inc., Individually, and as successor to Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For General Electric Company, Cross Defendant: Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz [*69] Campbell LLC, Wilmington, DE. For IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE. For ITT Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Foster Engineering Company, Cross Defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, DE. For Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant: Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Wilmington, DE. For Owens-Illinois Inc., Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan, Cross Defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel [*70] Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, DE. For Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as, Cross Defendant: Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE; Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE. For Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant: Kelly A. Costello, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE. Judges: Sherry R. Fallon, United States Magistrate Judge. Opinion by: Sherry R. Fallon Opinion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the court in this asbestos-related personal injury action are the motions for summary judgment of Defendants Foster Wheeler LLC ("Foster Wheeler") (D.I. 347), General Electric Company ("GE") (D.I. 349), Owens- Illinois Inc. ("Owens-Illinois") (D.I. 352), Aurora Pump Company ("Aurora") (D.I. 354), Velan Valve Corporation ("Velan Valve") (D.I. 356), Warren Pumps LLC ("Warren") (D.I. 358), Electrolux Home Products Inc., individually and as successor to Copes-Vulcan ("Electrolux" or "Copes-Vulcan") (D.I. 359), CBS Corporation ("CBS") (D.I. [*71] 362), Ingersoll Rand Company ("Ingersoll Rand") (D.I. 363), Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps Inc. ("Buffalo") (D.I. 366), IMO Industries Inc. ("IMO" also referred to as "DeLaval") (D.I. 368), and ABB Inc., as successor in interest to Bailey Meter Co. ("ABB") (D.I. 370) (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff Arthur Dumas ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Dumas"), opposes Defendants' motions for summary judgment. (D.I. 375; 383; 380; 374; 384; 382; 385; 386; 381; 378; 376; 377) As indicated in the chart infra and for the reasons that follow, I recommend that the court GRANT summary judgment as to the following Defendants: Electrolux, ABB, Velan Valve, GE, CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Owens-Illinois. I recommend that the court DENY summary judgment as to the following Defendants: Buffalo, Ingersoll Rand (denied-in-part), Aurora, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *68 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 31 of 46 PageID #: 4281 Page 23 of 37 IMO, and Warren (denied-in-part). Go to Table1 II. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History Plaintiff filed this personal injury action against Defendants on December 14, 2012, in the Superior Court of Delaware. (D.I. 1, Ex. 1) The complaint asserts that Plaintiff developed asbestosis through his work in the United States Navy from approximately 1954 to 1974. (Id.) On February 13, 2013, the case was removed to this court by Defendant Yarway Corporation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1)1 and 1446. (Id.) Foster Wheeler, GE, Owens-Illinois, Aurora, Velan Valve, Warren, Electrolux, CBS, Ingersoll Rand, Buffalo, IMO, and ABB individually filed the pending motions for summary judgment. (D.I. 347; 349; 352; 354; 356; 358; 359; 362; 363; 366; 368; 370) The motions were fully briefed by September 2014. (D.I. 408; 390; 396; 397; 392; 393; 395; 389; 391; 394; 398; 388) On November 13, 2014, the court held oral argument on the motions. B. Facts Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy throughout his career, which lasted approximately twenty years, starting in 1954. (D.I. 348, Ex. A) In 1956, Plaintiff was assigned to the pre-commissioning of the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (the "FDR"). (Id. at 76:21- 77:3) Plaintiff described his duties while aboard the FDR as "damage control." (Id. at 77:10-78:15) Plaintiff could not recall working on any specific equipment aboard the FDR. (Id. at 90:16-18) Plaintiff had no duties in the boiler room or the engine room of the FDR, but believed he was exposed to asbestos through the ventilation system on the ship. (Id. at 90:1-93:3) In June of 1957, Plaintiff left the FDR and was assigned to the reserve fleet in Green Cover Springs, Florida. (Id. at 93:4- 95:7) Plaintiff believed that he was exposed to asbestos at this time while he was assigned to security detail. (Id.) In September 1958, Plaintiff was assigned to the USS Forrestal (the "Forrestal"), an aircraft carrier. (Id. at 81:2-24) 1 The federal officer removal statute permits removal of a state court action to federal court when, inter alia, such action is brought against "[t]he United States or an agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual [*73] capacity for any act under color of such office." 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). While aboard the Forrestal, Plaintiff served for approximately two years at the rank of damage controlman third [*74] class. (Id.) Plaintiff testified to working on pumps and valves associated with hotel services (hot water, cold water, plumbing, and sewage). (Id. at 96:16-102:7) Plaintiff identified possible asbestos exposure from repacking of the valves associated with hotel services and removing insulation from pumps. (Id.) From approximately 1960 to 1963, Plaintiff served aboard the USS Enterprise (the "Enterprise") and was assigned to "precom detail." (Id. at 81:25-83:8) Plaintiff could not identify any specific equipment where he could have been exposed to asbestos while aboard the Enterprise. (Id. at 102:8- 106:5) From 1963 to 1967, Plaintiff was on shore duty, in various positions, before being assigned to the USS Ogden (the "Ogden"), as a warrant officer. (Id. at 83:9-85:24) While assigned to Harbor Defense, Plaintiff believed he may have been exposed to asbestos from old buildings and floor tile but again could not name any specific product or manufacturer. (Id. at 106:6-108:2) Plaintiff served on the Ogden until 1969 and testified to having no hands-on responsibilities for any equipment but was responsible for coordinating repairs to equipment such as pumps and valves. (Id. at 110:1- 115:15) [*75] Plaintiff next served aboard the USS Tidewater (the "Tidewater") until 1971. (Id. at 87:7-23) Plaintiff testified that he possibly could have been exposed to asbestos from others working on pumps, valves, and insulation in his vicinity. (Id. at 110:1-115:15) Plaintiff next served aboard the Vulcan for approximately six months before being reassigned to the Forrestal. (Id. at 87:24- 89:16) Plaintiff's duties aboard the Vulcan were similar to those while aboard the Tidewater. (Id. at 123:5-124:10) In 1971, Plaintiff was reassigned to the Forrestal for a second tour before being transferred to Port Services and later retiring from the Navy. (Id. at 124:11-130:4) Plaintiff, again, identified general exposure while aboard the Forrestal from pumps and valves. (Id.) C. Testimony of Product Identification Witnesses Plaintiff relies heavily on the testimony of product identification witnesses to support his claims that he was exposed to asbestos directly from Defendants' products and equipment during his time in the Navy while working with insulation, gaskets, and packing. 1. Edsel Mauldin 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *71 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 32 of 46 PageID #: 4282 Page 24 of 37 Mr. Edsel Mauldin is Plaintiff's principal witness regarding his time serving aboard the Forrestal between 1971 [*76] and 1972. (D.I. 375, Ex. A at 42:4-11) Mr. Mauldin had no specific recollection of Plaintiff ever being present while Mr. Mauldin performed maintenance and repair work on any piece of equipment aboard the Forrestal, including the oil shacks or engine room No. 2 where Mr. Mauldin was principally assigned. (Id. at 51:23-52:12; 122:6-19) Mr. Mauldin also worked in the Main Machinery Room ("MMR") and testified that Plaintiff, as a duty engineer aboard the Forrestal, would have made rounds in the MMR. (Id. at 54:3-9) Mr. Mauldin testified that he personally diagrammed and memorized every system in the engine room which gave him personal knowledge of the equipment aboard the Forrestal. (Id. at 217:5-218:1) Mr. Mauldin testified there was a 99% probability that Plaintiff was present when asbestos- containing equipment was worked on because Mr. Dumas, as a duty engineer, was responsible for supervising the areas where Mr. Mauldin worked. (Id. at 178:15-184:14) Mr. Mauldin further testified that the equipment he worked on while aboard the Forrestal utilized asbestos insulation because "nothing else in the world has got those little fibers in it like that...." (Id. at 216:5-8) Mr. Mauldin believed [*77] that the Navy followed the manufacturers' specifications which, in some instances, required external asbestos insulation to be applied to the machinery on the Forrestal. (Id. at 296:17- 297:24) In addition to repairs, Plaintiff points to Mr. Mauldin's testimony that the insulation was removed based on a preventative maintenance schedule. (D.I. 386 at 3-4) When removing and replacing gaskets and packing, Mr. Mauldin testified that asbestos would go "everywhere" as a result of using flanges and wire-brushes as well as dusting every piece of equipment with an air-hose. (D.I. 375, Ex. A at 221:2- 222:19, 223:18-24, 235:24-236:2) 2. Michael Dutridge Mr. Michael Dutridge served aboard the Forrestal at the same time as Mr. Dumas. (D.I. 355, Ex. F at 21:23-22:15) Plaintiff relies on Mr. Dutridge's testimony that 90% of the gaskets used on the Forrestal were original. (Id. at 114:7-11) 3. Douglas McWhirter Mr. Douglas McWhirter testified to his personal knowledge of the repair division aboard the FDR in the engineering space and the insulation that covered piping throughout the ship. (D.I. 380, Ex. D at 40:24-43:25) Mr. McWhirter was aboard the FDR at the same time as Mr. Dumas, however, he never [*78] met Plaintiff. (Id. at 19:25-20:6, 21:6-13) 4. Don Andrews Mr. Don Andrews served alongside Plaintiff aboard the Enterprise from 1962-1963. (D.I. 386, Ex. F at 17:11-18:22) Mr. Andrews personally witnessed lid removal of the turbines aboard the Enterprise. (Id. at 75:14-77:11) Mr. Andrews testified that removal of these lids would cause asbestos dust to become airborne and that there was no way that anyone in the engine rooms could have avoided the dust. (Id. at 83:16- 22) 5. Floyd Methner Mr. Floyd Methner testified regarding his time working aboard the Forrestal with major generators. (D.I. 383, Ex. C at 322:19-330:11) Mr. Methner recalled the valves of the generators being insulated in asbestos and that the steam end of the generators was also insulated with asbestos. (Id.) Mr. Methner further testified that he would remove the asbestos- containing packing from the generators in a process that would take up to two hours and that generated dust. (Id.) Mr. Methner believed that Plaintiff would have breathed that dust if he was in the area. (Id.) 6. Roger Smiley Mr. Roger Smiley served in the engineering log room aboard the Forrestal from September 1959 to March 1969, and as a machinist mate [*79] from March 1960 to June 1962. (D.I. 382, Ex. C at 11:25-14:8) Mr. Smiley's duties as a machinist mate were to keep track of all repairs of all the machinery on the ship. (Id. at 13:23-14:3) Mr. Smiley testified that the Forrestal ran on superheated steam at 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, and, thus, required asbestos insulation to enable the men to work on the equipment and to prevent them from being burned. (Id. at 67:11-68:6) Mr. Smiley further testified that Plaintiff could not have avoided exposure to asbestos while working on the ship. (Id.) D. Plaintiff's Alleged Exposure from Each Defendant's Products 1. Defendant ABB Plaintiff claims exposure to Bailey boiler combustion and feed water controls while working in the MRR aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 377 at 3, Ex. A at 240:8-241:19) Plaintiff relies on Mr. Mauldin's testimony that the Bailey boiler combustion and feed water controls were insulated with asbestos-containing insulation. (Id. at 178:15-187:4) Mr. Methner was mentioned in Plaintiff's briefs as a product identification witness of Bailey products, however Mr. Methner has not offered testimony regarding a Bailey product. (D.I. 377 at 3-4, Ex. C at 41:7-16, 140:2-141:6) Rather, Mr. [*80] Methner's testimony provides general 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *75 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 33 of 46 PageID #: 4283 Page 25 of 37 references to insulation aboard the Forrestal. (Id.) 2. Defendant Aurora Pump Plaintiff claims exposure to Aurora pumps during his first and second tours aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 374 at 1, Ex. A at 101:10-102:4) Plaintiff testified to supervising and participating in packing work and shipyard insulation tearouts on Aurora pumps aboard the Forrestal. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges he was exposed to Aurora pumps aboard the Tidewater where he oversaw the maintenance and repair of machinery in engine rooms. (Id. at 119:12-122:9) Plaintiff testified to exposure to asbestos-containing products from Aurora pump insulation tearouts and gasket seal work. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff relies on his knowledge of exposure to Aurora's alleged asbestos-containing products during his time on the Forrestal during his first and second tour, when he worked on and witnessed work done on Aurora pumps. (D.I. 374, Ex. A at 101:10-102:4, 126:23-127:5.) Plaintiff testified that while serving on the Tidewater he conducted repairs on 20 to 25 ships working on machinery in engine rooms and that he was exposed to asbestos from Aurora pump insulation tearouts as well as gasket [*81] seal work. (Id. at 119:12- 122:9) Plaintiff testified that he knew Aurora manufactured the various pumps because he reviewed their manuals. (Id. at 175:13-176:2) With regard to Aurora pump insulation, Plaintiff testified: Q. Okay, and we talked about you being around men who were sawing insulation off Aurora Pump's. That was original insulation, right? A. When they were installing insulation on pumps, they would more — it was — I would say they pulled the original insulation off and replaced with — new. (Id. at 272:13-23) Mr. Dutridge also testified to this topic: Q. Okay. Same questions for Aurora. The packing and insulation was asbestos? A. Correct. Q. And 90 percent of it was original to the pumps? A. Correct. (D.I. 374, Ex. B at 91:4-10) Plaintiff also relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Methner regarding the exposure to Aurora's alleged asbestos-containing pumps while aboard the Forrestal as discussed supra in section II(c). (Id. at 1-6) 3. Defendant Buffalo Pumps Plaintiff claims exposure to Buffalo pumps while conducting packing and original insulation work during his first tour aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 379 at 1, Ex. A at 101:10-102:4, 175:20-176:3) Plaintiff alleges exposure [*82] throughout his entire career and on every ship on which he served (not including the Tidewater and Vulcan), he claims exposure as a result of sweeping up after Buffalo pump insulation tearouts causing him to breathe in asbestos dust. (Id. at 274:3-17, 276:4-278:11) Plaintiff also relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Dutridge as discussed supra in section II(C). (Id., Ex. C at 216:7-8, 218:7-224:15, Ex. B at 90:11- 91:2) Specifically, Mr. Dutridge identified Buffalo pumps and testified that they were insulated with asbestos. (Id., Ex. B at 90:11-91:2) 4. Defendant CBS CBS Corporation (a Delaware corporation f/k/a Viacom Inc.) is a successor by merger to CBS Corporation (A Pennsylvania corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation) ("Westinghouse"). (D.I. 389 at 1 n. 1) Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to Westinghouse pumps and turbines in the MMR aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 386 at 2, Ex. D) Plaintiff relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Dutridge as discussed supra in section II(C). (Id. at 1-4) Specifically, Mr. Mauldin testified that Westinghouse pumps were insulated with asbestos and used asbestos gaskets and packing. (Id. at 3-5, Ex. A at 192:25- 195:17, 233:2-234:20, [*83] 218:7-224:15, 272:24-273:12) Mr. Dutridge testified that Westinghouse turbines used asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and gaskets aboard the Forrestal. (Id. at 5, Ex. Cat 93:4-23) 5. Defendant Electrolux Plaintiff's claims against defendant Electrolux relate to alleged exposure to asbestos components relating to Copes- Vulcan desuperheaters. (D.I. 385 at 1, Ex. A at 20:14-21:9) The alleged exposure occurred when Plaintiff was aboard the Forrestal. (Id. at 20:14-21:9, 54:3-9, 99:19-100:7, Ex. D) Plaintiff relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Methner as discussed supra in section II(C). (Id. at 1-4) Mr. Mauldin testified that Copes-Vulcan desuperheaters utilized asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets, and packing. (Id. at 2-5, Ex. A at 111:14-112:9, 101:16-101:22, 278:11- 280:9) Although Mr. Methner was mentioned in Plaintiff's briefs as a product identification witness of Copes-Vulcan products, Mr. Methner has not offered testimony regarding a Copes-Vulcan desuperheater. (Id. at 2-3, Ex. B at 45:23- 46:13) Rather, Mr. Methner's testimony describes his opinion 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *80 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 34 of 46 PageID #: 4284 Page 26 of 37 of the duration of time Plaintiff spent in the MMR aboard the Forrestal. (Id.) 6. Defendant Foster Wheeler Plaintiff alleges he was exposed to asbestos [*84] components relating to Foster Wheeler pumps aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 375 at 1-2, Ex. A at 54:3-9, 166:18-167:13, 178:9-186:1) Plaintiff relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Dutridge discussed supra in section II(C). (Id. at 1-4) Specifically, Mr. Mauldin testified that Foster Wheeler pumps utilized asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets, and packing. (Id. at 3-6, Ex. A at 179:22-184:14, 233:14-15, 220:9-224:15, 235:14-236:16) Foster Wheeler asserts that there were no Foster Wheeler products aboard the Forrestal, as there is no evidence of a contract to furnish equipment, including Foster Wheeler pumps, for use on the Forrestal. (D.I. 408 at 3-4, Ex. D) 7. Defendant General Electric Plaintiff alleges he was exposed to asbestos components relating to GE turbines in the MMR aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 383 at 2, Ex. A at 157:12-159:16) Plaintiff relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Dutridge discussed supra in section II(C). (Id. at 1-4) Specifically, Mr. Mauldin testified that GE turbines utilized asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets, and packing. (Id. at 2-4, Ex. A at 179:22- 184:14, 259:10-264:6, 259:10-264:6) Plaintiff also relies on Mr. Methner's testimony that GE 1500 Kilowatt generators [*85] had valves that were insulated with asbestos. (Id. at 4, Ex. Cat 322:19-330:11) Mr. Methner would remove asbestos-containing packing on GE generators and he believed the process would have caused Plaintiff to breathe asbestos-containing dust if he was in proximity to the area at the time Mr. Methner worked on GE generators. (Id.) 8. Defendant IMO Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to IMO ("DeLaval") pumps while aboard several different ships throughout his career. (D.I. 376 at 1-3) Plaintiff alleges exposure to DeLaval pumps while serving aboard the FDR in 1956. (Id., Ex. A at 89:24-90:15) Plaintiff relies on Mr. McWhirter's testimony that DeLaval pumps aboard the FDR utilized asbestos packing. (D.I. 376 at 6, Ex. G at 107:20-108:4, 114:9-115:16, 122:18-25) Plaintiff alleges exposure to DeLaval pumps aboard the Forrestal during his first tour from 1958 to 1960. (D.I. 376, Ex. A at 101:10-102:4) However, Plaintiff testified to only tightening "a packing gland" on a DeLaval fire main pump. (Id. at 98:8-12, 214:4-7) Plaintiff alleges exposure to DeLaval pumps while serving aboard the Enterprise from 1960 to 1963. (Id. at 102:8-11, 103:3-15) However, Plaintiff testified to entering the engine [*86] rooms, where DeLaval pumps were located, on only one occasion. (Id. at 103:3-25) Plaintiff alleges exposure to DeLaval pumps through external asbestos-containing insulation while serving aboard the Ogden from 1967 to 1969. (Id. at 112:18-113:21) Plaintiff was present during the removal and reinstallation of the insulation applied to DeLaval pumps aboard the Ogden. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges exposure to DeLaval pumps while serving aboard the Tidewater from 1969 to 1971. (Id. at 119:12- 122:9) Plaintiff testified to conducting and supervising repair work on 20-25 other ships based out of the repair shop on the Tidewater. (Id.) During the repair work, Plaintiff testified to being exposed to asbestos from DeLaval pump insulation tearouts and gasket seal work. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges exposure to DeLaval pumps' asbestos-containing components while serving aboard the Forrestal during his second tour from 1971 to 1974. (Id. at 175:13-176:3) Plaintiff also relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin as discussed supra in section II(C). (Id. at 2-7) Specifically, Mr. Mauldin testified that DeLaval pumps utilized asbestos insulation, gaskets, and packing aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 376 at 4-7, Ex. [*87] C at 179:22-184:14, 218:7-224:15, 255:7-256:22, 271:22-273:12) 9. Defendant Ingersoll Rand Plaintiff's claims against Ingersoll Rand relate to reciprocating emergency feed pumps in the MMR aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 381 at 1, Ex. A at 268:12-270:12, 178:15-184:4) Plaintiff relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Methner discussed supra in section II(C). (D.I. 381 at 1- 4) Specifically, Mr. Mauldin testified that Ingersoll Rand pumps utilized asbestos-containing insulation. (Id., Ex. A at 179:22-184:14, 269:9-17) Mr. Methner testified that Ingersoll Rand pumps utilized asbestos-containing gaskets and packing. (D.I. 381 at 3-5, Ex. B at 311:20-312:23, 309:8-310:19) 10. Defendant Owens-Illinois Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to Owens-Illinois asbestos-containing insulation while serving on the FDR in 1956 and part of 1957. (D.I. 380 at 1-2, Ex. C at 89:24-90:15, Ex. D 40:24-43:25) Owens-Illinois began a limited pilot plan operation in 1943 to manufacture Kaylo, an asbestos- containing pipe covering. (D.I. 380, Ex. A) It began commercial production and sale of its Kaylo product in 1948. (Id.) The entire Kaylo division, including inventory, was sold to Owens Coming Fiberglas [*88] Corporation ("Owens Coming") on April 30, 1958. (D.I. 380, Ex. B at 1-4) Plaintiff relies solely on the testimony of Mr. McWhirter who testified that there were miles of insulated piping running 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *83 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 35 of 46 PageID #: 4285 Page 27 of 37 throughout the FDR. (D.I. 380 at 2, Ex. D at 40:24-43:25) Mr. McWhirter testified that this insulation was manufactured by Owens-Illinois. (Id.) Mr. McWhirter and his shipmates would have to remove this insulation in order to work on the machinery aboard the ship as well as reinstall it. (Id.) Mr. McWhirter testified that the operation of the ship alone would make asbestos dust from Owens-Illinois insulation go airborne. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that based on Mr. McWhirter's testimony, it is highly likely that Plaintiff would have breathed a substantial amount of asbestos dust from original Owens-Illinois insulation during the yard period, as heavy maintenance was conducted. (D.I. 380 at 5, Ex. D at 123:6- 23) 11. Defendant Velan Valve Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos-containing components relating to Velan valves in the MMR aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 384 at 1-2, Ex. A at 177:22-178:16) Plaintiff relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin as discussed supra in section II(C). [*89] (D.I. 384 at 1-5) Specifically, Mr. Mauldin testified that Velan valves utilized asbestos- containing insulation on the flange shields, flange gaskets, and packing. (Id., Ex. A at 311:5-312:9) Plaintiff also relies on Mr. Methner's testimony that manufacture specification sheets required external asbestos insulation on equipment aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 384 at 3-4, Ex. E at 194:15-195:9) However, Mr. Methner's testimony is not specific to Velan valves. (Id.) 12. Defendant Warren Pumps Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos-containing components relating to Warren main feed pumps in the MRR aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 382 at 1-2, Ex. A at 177:22-178:16) Plaintiff relies on the general testimony of Mr. Mauldin as discussed supra in section II(C). (D.I. 382 at 1-6) Specifically, Mr. Mauldin testified that Warren pumps utilized asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets, and packing. (Id., Ex. A at 143:21-144:13, 233:2-234:20, 270:13-273:20) Plaintiff also relies on Mr. Methner's testimony regarding manufacture specification sheets, however there is no identification of Warren pumps. (D.I. 382, Ex. D at 194:15- 195:9) III. LEGAL STANDARD "The court shall grant summary judgment if [*90] the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that could affect the outcome of the proceeding, and "a dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177, 181 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). Pursuant to Rule 56(c)(1), a party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support its contention either by citing to "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for the purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials," or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (B). The moving party bears the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuinely disputed material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 321. The burden then shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989). When determining whether a genuine [*91] issue of material fact exists, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007); Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). However, the existence of some evidence in support of the nonmoving party may not be sufficient to deny a motion for summary judgment. Rather, there must be enough evidence to enable a jury reasonably to find for the nonmoving party on the issue. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case on which it bears the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. IV. DISCUSSION A. Applicable Law After considering the parties' choice of law arguments (D.I. 322; 323), the court concluded that maritime law should apply to Plaintiff's claims relating to his asbestos exposure that allegedly occurred while he served in the U.S. Navy.2 (D.I. 2 In order for maritime law to apply, a plaintiff's exposure underlying a products liability claim must meet both a locality test and a connection test. In Jerome B. Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *88 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 36 of 46 PageID #: 4286 Page 28 of 37 345) In each of the pending summary judgment motions, Defendants contend that summary judgment should be granted because Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants' products were a substantial factor in causing his injuries and Defendants did not manufacture or distribute the allegedly asbestos-containing products. (D.I. 348; 350; 353; 355; 357; 361; 360; 364; 365; 367; 369; 374) To establish causation in an asbestos claim under maritime law, a plaintiff must show, for each defendant, that "(1) he was exposed to the defendant's product, and (2) the product was a substantial factor3 in causing the injury he suffered." Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Stark v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 21 F. Appx. 371, 375 (6th Cir. 2001)). Other courts in this Circuit recognize a third element [*93] and require a plaintiff to "show that (3) the defendant manufactured or distributed the asbestos-containing product to which exposure is alleged."4 Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 115 S. Ct. 1043, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1024 (1995), the Supreme Court defined these tests as follows: A court applying the location test must determine whether the tort occurred on navigable [*92] water or whether injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water. The connection test raises two issues. A court, first, must "assess the general features of the type of incident involved," to determine whether the incident has "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce[.]" Second, a court must determine whether "the general character" of the "activity giving rise to the incident" shows a "substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity." Grubart, 513 U.S. at 534 (internal citations omitted); see also Gibbs ex rel. Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 314 F.3d 125, 131-32 (3d Cir. 2002). 3 "Maritime law incorporates traditional 'substantial factor' causation principles, and courts often look to the Restatement (Second) of Torts for a more helpful definition." Delatte v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121790, 2011 WL 11439126, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2011). The comments to the Restatement indicate that the word "substantial," in this context, "denote[s] the fact that the defendant's conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause, using that word in the popular sense, in which there always lurks the idea of responsibility." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431 cmt. a (1965). 4 The majority of federal courts have held that, under maritime law, a manufacturer has no liability for harms caused by, and no duty to warn about hazards associated with, a product it did not manufacture or distribute. This is also referred to as the "bare metal" defense. See Dalton v. 3M Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130407, 2013 WL Abbay v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29422, 2012 WL 975837, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 29, 2012). "In establishing causation, a plaintiff may rely upon direct evidence (such as testimony of the plaintiff or decedent who experienced the exposure, co-worker testimony, or eye- witness testimony) or circumstantial [*94] evidence that will support an inference that there was exposure to the defendant's product for some length of time."5 Abbay, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29422, 2012 WL 975837, at *1 n.1 (citing Stark, 21 F. Appx. at 376). On the other hand, "'[m]inimal exposure' to a defendant's product is insufficient to establish causation. Likewise, a mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiff's place of work is insufficient." Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 (quoting Stark, 21 F. Appx. at 376). "Rather, the plaintiff 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.'" Abbay, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29422, 2012 WL 975837, at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). "Total failure to show that the defect caused or contributed to the accident will foreclose as a matter of law a finding of strict product[] liability." Stark, 21 F. Appx. at 376 (citations omitted). Should the court decide that causation has been established, Defendants rely upon the "bare metal" defense to avoid liability on the basis that they have no duty to Plaintiff relating to asbestos-containing replacement parts they did not manufacture or distribute. Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 791, 801-802 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (explaining the policy rationale for holding only [*95] those who make or sell the injurious product liable for the injuries alleged). "The so- called 'bare metal defense' is recognized by maritime law, such that a manufacturer has no liability for harms caused by—and no duty to warn about hazards associated with—a product it did not manufacture or distribute." Carper v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168974, 2014 WL 6736205, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 2014) (citing Conner, 842 F.Supp.2d at 801). B. Analysis of Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions 4886658, at *7 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2013) (citing cases); Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 791, 801 (E.D. Pa. 2012). 5 However, "'substantial exposure is necessary to draw an inference from circumstantial evidence that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the injury.'" Stark, 21 F. Appx. at 376 (quoting Harbour v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10867, 1991 WL 65201, at *4 (6th Cir. April 25, 1991)). 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *91 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 37 of 46 PageID #: 4287 Page 29 of 37 Plaintiff puts forth three main arguments as to why summary judgment should be denied with respect to each moving Defendant: (1) there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants' asbestos-containing products were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's asbestosis; (2) there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether each Defendant had a duty of care to warn Plaintiff of foreseeable asbestos exposure resulting from asbestos-containing products it or another manufacturer supplied; and (3) there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there existed a design defect in each Defendant's product, and Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff of the foreseeable harms resulting from its asbestos-containing products and the asbestos products of other manufacturers.6 (D.I. 375; 383; 380; 374; 384; 382; [*96] 385; 386; 381; 378; 376; 377) 1. Defendant Electrolux The court should grant Electrolux's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff has failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Electrolux's product was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products used in connection with Copes-Vulcan desuperheaters while serving aboard the [*97] Forrestal. (D.I. 385 at 1) Namely, Plaintiff relies on Mr. Mauldin's testimony that Copes-Vulcan desuperheaters utilized asbestos insulation on pipes connected to the machinery and from desuperheater gaskets. (Id. at 2-5) Mr. Mauldin believed Plaintiff would have been exposed to asbestos through unspecified work on Copes-Vulcan products based on his Navy occupation rating. (Id.) Mr. Mauldin never worked on desuperheaters while aboard the Forrestal and never saw Plaintiff working on or in the proximity to anyone working on a Copes-Vulcan product.7 (Id.) Mr. Mauldin testified to seeing work on 6 Against Ingersoll Rand and Warren Pumps, Plaintiff alleges a fourth argument that summary judgment should be denied regarding Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. (D.I. 381 at 14-17; D.I. 382 at 13- 16) However, Plaintiff provides no argument or legal theory in support of this argument. (Id.) Rather, Plaintiff generically cites the expert report of David Rosner attached to his answering brief. (D.I. 381, Ex. H; D.I. 382, Ex. H) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing on an essential element of his case on which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. I recommend that the motions for summary judgment of Ingersoll Rand and Warren Pumps be granted in part regarding Plaintiff's punitive damages claims. 7 Mr. Mauldin had no specific recollection of Plaintiff ever being present while he or anyone else performed maintenance or repair desuperheaters only once during his entire service aboard the Forrestal. (Id.) Even assuming that the evidence from Plaintiff's product identification witness is sufficient to meet the threshold for exposure to Copes-Vulcan's product, there is no evidence which places Plaintiff in the vicinity of any Copes-Vulcan product while it was worked on during his service on the Forrestal. (D.I. 385) Plaintiff further argues that Electrolux is responsible for the effects of any exposure relating to its products, whether original or replacement parts, regardless of the manufacturer. The "bare metal" defense supports the recommendation that Electrolux should not be liable for any product it did not manufacture or distribute. See Conner, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 801; see also Cabasug v. Crane Co., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (D. Haw. 2013) (following Conner line of reasoning, holding "a manufacturer is not liable for replacement parts that it did not place into the stream of commerce, whether the manufacturer's product originally contained asbestos components or was designed to include asbestos components.").8 Plaintiff's contention that Electrolux supplied asbestos- containing equipment or specified use of asbestos with its product is not supported by the record. Plaintiff's claim is based substantially on selected responses to general questions taken from the deposition testimony of Mr. Methner. (D.I. 385 at 12) However, Mr. Methner offered no testimony regarding Copes-Vulcan or the desuperheaters which Plaintiff alleges are the source of his alleged exposure. (D.I. 395 at 9) "It is entirely possible that the dust to which Plaintiff was exposed was from replacement insulation that did not contain asbestos and/or that was not manufactured or supplied by [Electrolux]." Carper, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168974, 2014 WL 6736205, at *1. Plaintiff has done nothing more than show the presence of Electrolux desuperheaters aboard the Forrestal. Moreover, the desuperheaters were located in the boiler room, whereas the allegations place Plaintiff in the MRR space as the duty engineer. work on any piece of equipment aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 348, Ex. A at 51:23-52:12, 122:6-19) [*98] 8 There is an internal inconsistency in Plaintiff's argument wherein Plaintiff contends Defendants' products contained original asbestos insulation aboard the Forrestal fifteen years after it was commissioned to active service, while also asserting that all equipment aboard the Forrestal was regularly repaired and replaced as a matter of the routine preventative maintenance schedule. (D.I. 350 at 4) The trouble with Plaintiff's arguments is the inability to reconcile whether the original asbestos-containing components remained on the ship for fifteen years or the components were [*99] routinely repaired and replaced at regular intervals. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *95 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 38 of 46 PageID #: 4288 Page 30 of 37 While all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant, the nonmoving party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of inference upon inference. Instead, inferences [*100] must be supported by facts in the record, not by speculation or conjecture. See Leonard v. Stemtech Health Scis., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139221, 2011 WL 6046701, at *8 (D. Del. Dec. 5, 2011) (citations omitted). Consequently, I recommend granting Electrolux's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 ("[A] mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiff's place of work is insufficient [to establish causation]). 2. Defendant ABB I recommend that the court grant ABB's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff has failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether ABB's product was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff alleges that exposure to asbestos through boiler combustion and feedwater controls manufactured or sold by ABB (Bailey Meter Co.) while aboard the Forrestal was a substantial factor in his asbestosis. (D.I. 377) However, ABB asserts that Bailey never manufactured boilers or insulation. (D.I. 388 at 1) Plaintiff's reliance on the testimony of Mr. Mauldin, Mr. Smiley, and Mr. Methner is unpersuasive. There is no testimony about Bailey boiler combustion controls from Mr. Smiley or Mr. Methner. (D.I. 377, Ex. B at 32:21-71:1, Ex. C at 40:13-41:16, 45:20-46:13, 78:14-80:11, 139:19- 140:6) There is [*101] no evidence that Bailey ever "manufactured and/or supplied" any insulation in regards to boilers and combustion and feedwater controls as alleged by the testimony of Plaintiff's product identification witnesses. Plaintiff's exposure claim arising from Bailey controls is based upon general allegations of Mr. Mauldin that three quarters of the insulation installed on machinery on the Forrestal was original, thus, work performed on Bailey controls made asbestos dust go airborne. (Id. at 3, Ex. A at 195:25-196:9) The Plaintiff relies on an inference that if it is assumed that the Plaintiff was present during the time dust was released due to work performed on Bailey controls, then ABB may be liable. (Id. at 12, Ex. A at 195:25-196:9, 179:22- 187:4) Plaintiff's assertion is insufficient for purposes of summary judgment. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. As discussed supra in section IV(B)(1), Plaintiff has failed to show beyond mere speculation and conjecture that he was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied by ABB. Consequently, the recommendation herein is to grant ABB's motion for summary judgment. See id. 3. Defendant Velan Valve The court should grant Velan Valve's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff [*102] has failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Velan Valve's product was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff relies primarily on the testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Dutridge regarding Velan Valve products aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 384 at 1-4) However, no witness could testify that Plaintiff ever worked in the vicinity of any Velan Valve product during Plaintiff's time aboard the Forrestal. Plaintiff submits evidence that there were about 396 Velan Valves in the MMR aboard the Forrestal (two transfer valves for each of 198 fuel tanks). (D.I. 357, Ex. G at 116:13-15) Plaintiff primarily relies on Mr. Mauldin's testimony that the valves utilized asbestos packing. (11/13/14 Tr. at 26:24-29:3) Removal of the packing caused asbestos dust to become airborne as it came out in pieces and the rest was blown out with an air hose. (Id.) However, Mr. Mauldin testified that the ship had been through overhauls several times in the number of years it was in service. (Mauldin Dep. Tr. at 62:1-63:20) Thus, there is no evidence of record to support whether any packing removed from Velan valves was the original asbestos-containing component applied [*103] by the manufacturer. Plaintiff relies on the testimony of Mr. Dutridge for the factual support that ninety percent of the asbestos-containing components were original to the equipment aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 384, Ex. F at 90:11-91:13) However, Mr. Dutridge's ninety percent reference relates to insulation, not packing. (Id. at 88:4-89:6) Therefore, viewing the evidence most favorably to Plaintiff, there is only a "mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiff's place of work." Walkup v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125301, 2014 WL 4447568, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2014) (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). As discussed supra in section IV(B)(1), Plaintiff has failed to show beyond mere speculation and conjecture that he was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied by Velan Valve. Consequently, the court should grant Velan Valve's motion for summary judgment. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. 4. Defendant GE The court should grant GE's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff has failed to show that a material issue of 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *99 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 39 of 46 PageID #: 4289 Page 31 of 37 fact exists as to whether GE's product was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff relies primarily on the testimony of Mr. Mauldin for product identification and causation. (D.I. 383 at 1-5) It is undisputed that there were GE turbines [*104] and generators on board the Forrestal. (D.I. 390 at 2-4) However, none of Plaintiff's product identification witnesses observed Plaintiff near a GE product or observed any work being performed on GE Products. Mr. Mauldin offers testimony about dust created when insulation on the generators were replaced. (D.I. 383 at 2-3, Ex. A at 179:22-184:14, 259:10-264:6) From such testimony, Plaintiff argues that the issue of Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos from GE products should be decided by the jury. (Id. at 7-9) However, Plaintiff presents no evidence as to whether GE specified the use of asbestos-containing insulation on its turbines. Thus, the presence of GE products on board the ship is not sufficient to create a material issue of fact. As discussed supra in section IV(B)(1), Plaintiff has failed to show beyond mere speculation and conjecture that he was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied by GE. Consequently, the court should grant GE's motion for summary judgment. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. 5. Defendant CBS The court should grant CBS' motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff has failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether CBS' product was a substantial factor in causing [*105] Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff relies primarily on the testimony of Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Dutridge regarding his alleged exposure to original CBS (Westinghouse) pumps and turbines. (D.I. 386 at 2-6) Mr. Mauldin recalls Westinghouse pumps aboard the Forrestal in both the MMR and the pump rooms. He has no specific recollection of whether Plaintiff was ever present during work on Westinghouse fire pumps. (Id. at 2, Ex. A at 67:9-70:21) Mr. Mauldin concludes that because of Plaintiff's responsibilities as a duty engineer, Plaintiff would have been around Westinghouse fire pumps while others worked on them. (Id.) Mr. Dutridge remembers work being done on Westinghouse equipment on only one occasion. (D.I. 364, Fat 70:6-25; 85:13-86:3) Mr. Dutridge offers no testimony that places Plaintiff in the vicinity of Westinghouse propulsion turbines (not fire pumps) on the one instance when he recalls work was performed on the turbines. (Id.) Assuming Westinghouse machinery, whether turbines or fire pumps, was present aboard the Forrestal, Plaintiff has not produced evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was substantially exposed to respirable asbestos dust from any insulation [*106] installed, manufactured, or supplied by Westinghouse. Plaintiff has offered no evidence as to whether any Westinghouse equipment aboard the Forrestal contained any asbestos insulation or packing original to the equipment. Mr. Maudlin's testimony that several overhauls of the ship took place during the time it was in service conflicts with Mr. Dutridge's testimony that ninety percent of the asbestos- containing insulation was original to the pumps. (D.I. 386, Ex. A at 62:1-63:20; Ex. C at 90:11-91:13) Methner testified that he read specification sheets requiring asbestos insulation on pumps, but could not confirm with certainty that he reviewed a Westinghouse specification sheet. (D.I. 386, Ex. Fat 302:12- 303:9) Although Westinghouse product identification aboard the Forrestal is established, the evidence in the record fails to create a material issue of fact concerning the substantial exposure requirement. As discussed supra in section IV(B)(1), Plaintiff has failed to show beyond mere speculation and conjecture that he was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied by CBS. Consequently, the court should grant CBS' motion for summary judgment. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. 6. Defendant Foster [*107] Wheeler The court should grant Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff has failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Foster Wheeler's product was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff relies on the testimony of Mr. Mauldin, as discussed above. Plaintiff further argues that documents produced by Foster Wheeler show that they knew Foster Wheeler pumps would be used in high heat applications and that the pumps needed asbestos-containing components. (D.I. 375, Ex. F) However, the Foster Wheeler documents produced do not pertain to the Forrestal, where Plaintiff alleges exposure, and therefore they cannot be used to support claims pertaining to Foster Wheeler pumps aboard the Forrestal.9 (D.I. 408 at 7) Mr. Mauldin's testimony does not demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning Plaintiff's alleged exposure to a Foster Wheeler product. (D.I: 375, Ex. A at 28:24-30:17) Although Mr. Mauldin testified that he worked with machinery, which could have included Foster Wheeler 9 Foster Wheeler contends that there were no Foster Wheeler pumps present aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 408 at 7) 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *103 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 40 of 46 PageID #: 4290 Page 32 of 37 boilers and products [*108] manufactured by any named Defendant, Mr. Mauldin failed to identify an instance in which Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos as a result of a Foster Wheeler product. (Id. at 177:1-179-17, 176:3-179:14) Plaintiff was not responsible for making repairs while he and Mr. Mauldin were aboard the Forrestal together. (Id. at 176:1- 17) Mr. Mauldin also testified that he is almost certain Plaintiff would have been in the room while someone was working on machinery, but he does not identify a time when he or Plaintiff worked on a Foster Wheeler boiler or pump in particular. (Id. at 177:22-178:7) Mr. Mauldin has no specific recollection as to witnessing Plaintiff oversee work on a Foster Wheeler boiler, stating that he never personally saw Plaintiff working with or supervising maintenance to Foster Wheeler products. (Id. at 70:9-21) Mr. Mauldin admitted that it was not his job to keep track of Plaintiff. (Id. at 175:25- 176:2) Furthermore, although Mr. Mauldin testified that servicemen could have worked on machinery at port different from that which they had originally been assigned, Mr. Mauldin testified that Plaintiff would not have been around during those repairs. (Id. at 293:2-19) Mr. Mauldin [*109] did testify as to personally working on pumps containing insulation; however Mr. Mauldin did not specifically identify any pump as manufactured by Foster Wheeler, nor did he testify as to personal knowledge of Plaintiff working on a Foster Wheeler product containing asbestos. Mr. Mauldin was ninety-nine percent sure Plaintiff breathed asbestos dust while on the Forrestal, but at no time did he identify Foster Wheeler as the manufacturer of a product that caused such exposure. Mr. Mauldin made generalized affirmations of Plaintiff's exposure to products of all named Defendants when prompted by Plaintiff's counsel. Moreover, Plaintiff could not identify Foster Wheeler as the manufacturer of any boiler on any of the ships on which he served. (D.I. 348, Ex. A 198:9-13) Plaintiff did not testify that he personally worked with any Foster Wheeler boiler while aboard the Forrestal. (Id. at 198:18-21) This court should grant Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on the threshold issue of lack of product identification. The evidence presented by Plaintiff in opposition to the motion fails to show that a material issue of fact exists as to the presence of any Foster Wheeler product that [*110] would have exposed Plaintiff to asbestos aboard the Forrestal. Under Rule 56(c)(1)-(4), the opposing motion for summary judgment must offer evidence that a genuine issue of material fact exists. In the instant case, Plaintiff relies exclusively on Mr. Mauldin's testimony to establish product identification. Mr. Mauldin's testimony consists of an affirmative response to Plaintiff's counsel's question identifying the name of Foster Wheeler among numerous other Defendants listed in the question: Q: All right. So if we were to summarize what we just talked about, there's a 99-percent chance that Mr. Dumas breathed the asbestos dust from these products? A: I would say yes. (D.I. 375, Ex. A at 185:712) This question was posed following lengthy questioning of Mr. Mauldin wherein he made no identification on his own of the presence of a Foster Wheeler product aboard the Forrestal. (D.I. 375, Ex. A at 183:7-185:5) In the absence of any other evidence of product identification in the record, Plaintiff fails to satisfy his obligation under Rule 56(c). As discussed supra in section IV(B)(1), Plaintiff has failed to show beyond mere speculation and conjecture that he was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied [*111] by Foster Wheeler. The "mere showing that [Foster Wheeler's] product was present somewhere at plaintiff's work is insufficient." Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Consequently, the court should grant Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment. See id. 7. Defendant Owens-Illinois The court should grant Owens-Illinois' motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff has failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Owens-Illinois' product was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff relies solely on the testimony of Mr. McWhirter regarding his personal knowledge of the Owens-Illinois (Owens-Coming) alleged asbestos-containing insulation running throughout the FDR piping systems. (D.I. 380, Ex. D 40:24-43:25) Mr. McWhirter also testified that Plaintiff was likely to breathe in respirable dust from original Owens- Illinois (Owens-Corning) insulation during the yard period. (Id. at 40:1-43:25) However, Mr. McWhirter did not know Plaintiff or what Plaintiff's duties were aboard the FDR. (Id. at 25:6-14) There is no evidence that Plaintiff ever worked with, or was present when someone else worked on Owens- Illinois (Kaylo) products aboard the FDR. Construing the evidence in the [*112] light most favorable to Plaintiff, the record demonstrates that pipe insulation on the FDR included the Owens-Illinois brand supplied by Owens Coming. (Id. at 2, Ex. D at 40:24-43:25) Furthermore, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *107 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 41 of 46 PageID #: 4291 Page 33 of 37 removal and replacement of the insulation created dust in all areas of the ship, according to Mr. McWhirter. (Id.) However, no evidence exists that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust from any insulation manufactured or supplied by Owens- Illinois. No evidence places Plaintiff in the vicinity of respirable dust from pipe insulation. These facts are similar to the facts set forth in Lenig v. Cleaver Brooks Co. In that case, witness testimony and documentary evidence revealed that asbestos pipe insulation removal, replacement, and installation work was performed during the relevant time period, creating dust throughout the whole ship, but no witness personally knew the plaintiff. Lenig v. Cleaver Brooks Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136647, 2015 WL 5683137, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Pa. March 4, 2015). In granting summary judgment, the court observed that there was no evidence the plaintiff was exposed to respirable asbestos dust from any insulation manufactured or supplied by the defendant, because no evidence placed the plaintiff in the vicinity of respirable asbestos from the pipe insulation, and no 'evidence showed [*113] that the old insulation being removed was manufactured or supplied by the defendant. Id. As a result, the court declined to find that Owens-Illinois insulation was a substantial factor in the development of the plaintiff's illness, because such a finding would be based on conjecture. Id. As discussed supra in section IV(B)(1), Plaintiff has failed to show beyond mere speculation and conjecture that he was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied by Owens-Illinois. Consequently, the court should grant Owens-Illinois' motion for summary judgment. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. 8. Defendant Buffalo The court should deny Buffalo's summary judgment motion because Plaintiff is able to demonstrate that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff's injuries were caused by asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in Buffalo pumps. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff has presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a fact issue for the jury as to whether Buffalo supplied the original asbestos- containing gaskets and packing in its pumps, and that Plaintiff was substantially exposed to this asbestos. Plaintiff identified Buffalo pumps being used on the Forrestal during both of his tours. (D.I. 378, Ex. [*114] A at 101:10- 102:4, 175:25-176:1) Plaintiff testified to his knowledge of Buffalo pumps because he reviewed their manuals. (Id. at 175:13-176:2) Mr. Mauldin also testified that he personally memorized and diagrammed every system in the engine room aboard the Forrestal so he could accurately describe Buffalo products. (D.I. 378, Ex. C at 216:21-218:1) He also remembers Buffalo pumps because the pumps had metal nametags attached to them. (Id. at 135:19-25) Mr. Mauldin was present during the pump repair process, and testified to working on Buffalo pumps in each section of the MMR. (Id. at 209:23-224:15) Mr. Mauldin also testified that Plaintiff would have been exposed in the machinery space where work was done with asbestos parts for at least eight hours per day, five to seven days a week, creating a fact issue regarding substantial exposure. (Id. at 209:23-224:15) The testimony of Mr. Methner and Mr. Smiley supports Plaintiff's claim of substantial exposure to Buffalo pumps. Specifically, Plaintiff relies on testimony that specification sheets used aboard the Forrestal required external asbestos insulation to be applied to the machinery because the Forrestal ran on superheated steam at [*115] 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. (D.I. 378, Ex. F at 194:15-195:9, 281:12-282:2; Ex. E at 67:11-68:6) Moreover, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff's alleged exposure was a substantial factor in causing his injuries based on the testimony of Mr. Dumas, Mr. Dutridge, Mr. Mauldin, and Mr. Methner. Mr. Dumas testified that the pumps were original to the Forrestal, and Mr. Dutridge reviewed the manuals and determined that the insulation, packing, and gaskets were original to the Buffalo pumps. (D.I. 378, Ex. A at 271:11- 272:4; Ex. B at 90:11-91:2, 112:21-24) Mr. Mauldin and Mr. Methner estimated that between seventy-five and eighty percent of the insulation was original from the time of installation. (D.I. 378, Ex. C at 192:25-196:19; Ex. F at 41:7- 16) Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the jury or fact finder could decide that Buffalo supplied the original, asbestos-containing gaskets and packing inside its pumps, and that Plaintiff experienced substantial exposure to Buffalo's asbestos-containing products, raising a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Buffalo's liability for Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, the court should deny Buffalo's summary [*116] judgment motion with respect to Plaintiff's injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in Buffalo's pumps. 9. Defendant Aurora The court should deny Aurora's summary judgment motion with respect to whether Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos- containing gaskets and packing in Aurora pumps such that it was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff has presented circumstantial evidence showing that Aurora supplied the original, internal asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in its pumps, and that Plaintiff was exposed to this asbestos. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *112 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 42 of 46 PageID #: 4292 Page 34 of 37 Plaintiff testified specifically that from 1958-1960, he was exposed to asbestos on the Forrestal when he had to replace the packing and insulation on Aurora pumps. (D.I. 374, Ex. A at 101:1-102:4) Although he could not remember which pump was which, he specifically identified and remembered working with Aurora pumps; he knew they were on the ship. (Id. at 300:3-9, 101:10-102:7) Plaintiff testified that he oversaw repairs and maintenance to these pumps. (Id. at 111:13-112:22) He recalled that the insulation that had to be sawed off Aurora pumps was original asbestos insulation. (Id. at 272:13-21) He [*117] testified that he supervised workers who would "pull the pump out, take it to the shop, rebuild [to] specifications, and then get it back into the shop and line ... and then re-cover it." (Id. at 112:23-113:6) There were times when he was there while workers were taking the insulation off, and other times he was there when they were putting the pump back together. (Id. at 113:8-10). He testified that he oversaw work on Aurora pumps that included pulling insulation, relining pumps, or replacing seals on pumps. (Id. at 121:3-122:9) He testified that after those work events, asbestos "was all over." (Id.) Moreover, he identified Aurora when he recalled looking at their manuals dealing with pumps that he was responsible for on the Forrestal. (Id. at 175:13- 176:2) Viewed in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the jury or fact finder could decide that Aurora supplied the original, asbestos-containing gaskets and packing inside its pumps, which raises a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Aurora's liability for Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore the court should deny Aurora's summary judgment motion with respect to Plaintiff's injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing [*118] gaskets and packing in Buffalo pumps. 10. Defendant Ingersoll Rand The court should deny Ingersoll Rand's summary judgment motion10 because Plaintiff is able to demonstrate that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff's injuries were caused by asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in Ingersoll Rand's pumps such that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff has presented circumstantial evidence showing that Ingersoll Rand supplied the original, internal asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in its pumps, and that Plaintiff was substantially exposed to this asbestos. 10 However, see n.6, supra, granting Ingersoll Rand's motion in part as to Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. Plaintiff relies on the testimony as discussed supra in section II(C) as well as the specific testimony of Mr. Mauldin, who recalled working with Ingersoll Rand reciprocating emergency feed pumps in the MMR; Mr. Methner, who recalled eight steam driven Ingersoll Rand pumps in the main spaces and additional ones in the auxiliary spaces; and Mr. Dutridge, who worked on Ingersoll Rand pumps while Plaintiff was on board the Forrestal. (D.I. 381 at 8-12) Mr. [*119] Methner testified that Ingersoll Rand pumps originally came with asbestos packing in them; the packing was a lead foil type with asbestos and cloth that was specifically used because it did not damage the rotating shaft. (D.I. 381, Ex. B at 320:12-23, 321:6-322:18) Additionally, Mr. McWhirter testified that Plaintiff would have breathed substantial amounts of asbestos dust from original Ingersoll Rand booster pump packing during the Bremerton yard period in 1956, as heavy maintenance was conducted aboard the FDR. (D.I. 380, Ex. D at 107:10-108:9, 131:19-132:6, 142:3- 25) Plaintiff argues that Ingersoll Rand supplied equipment for high heat application. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the bare metal defense does not apply because based on Mr. McWhirter's testimony, Ingersoll Rand shipped its pumps with asbestos packing in them—packing which was comprised of a lead foil type with asbestos and cloth material. (D.I. 380, Ex. B at220:12-23, 321:6-322:18) Plaintiff alleges Ingersoll Rand knew that asbestos-containing products would be used in conjunction with its products. (D.I. 381 at 13). Viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the jury or fact finder could decide that Ingersoll Rand [*120] supplied the original, asbestos-containing gaskets and packing inside its pumps, raising a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Ingersoll Rand's liability for Plaintiff's injuries. 11. Defendant IMO The court should deny IMO's summary judgment motion because Plaintiff is able to demonstrate that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff's injuries were caused by asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in IMO (DeLaval) pumps such that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492. Plaintiff has presented circumstantial evidence showing that IMO supplied the original, internal asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in its pumps, and that Plaintiff was exposed to this asbestos. Plaintiff relies on the testimony as discussed supra in section II(C) as well as his own testimony that every ship he served on (not including the Tidewater and Vulcan), he worked on or was in the presence of someone else working on IMO 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *116 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 43 of 46 PageID #: 4293 Page 35 of 37 (DeLaval) pump insulation tearouts, causing him to breathe in asbestos dust. (D.I. 376, Ex. A at 126:23-127:5, 216:15-217:3, 274:3-17, 276:4-278:11); see also supra section II(D)(11). Plaintiff knew that these were IMO (DeLaval) [*121] pumps because he reviewed their manuals and worked on IMO (DeLaval) pumps. Id. at 175:13-176:3. In addition, Plaintiff again relies on Mr. Mauldin, who testified that he personally diagrammed and memorized every system in the engine room, including IMO (DeLaval) pumps, and recalled DeLaval nametags on a screw-type oil pump. (D.I. 378, Ex. C at 216:21-218:1) Plaintiff also relies on the testimony of Mr. McWhirter, who worked with IMO (DeLaval) pumps on the FDR. (D.I. 380, Ex. D at 119:1-121:19). Mr. McWhirter testified that IMO (DeLaval) pumps utilized braided carbon ring compressible asbestos graphite packing which would send asbestos dust airborne any time it was removed, repaired, or serviced. (Id.) Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the jury or fact finder could decide that IMO supplied the original, asbestos- containing product, which raises a genuine issue of material fact with respect to IMO's liability for Plaintiff's injuries. A reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured or supplied by IMO such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness. 12. Defendant Warren Pumps I recommend [*122] that Warren's motion for summary judgment be denied11 because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff's exposure to Warren's product was a substantial factor in causing his alleged injuries. Plaintiff had two tours of duty on the Forrestal. Plaintiff does not offer any evidence of exposure to a Warren Pump product during his first tour from 1958-1960. Plaintiff relies primarily on the testimony of Mr. Mauldin relating to Plaintiff's second tour on the Forrestal when their service overlapped. The first dispute of fact between the parties concerns the identification of the particular pump manufactured by Warren and installed aboard the Forrestal. Warren avers that the only pumps it supplied were "JP-5 fuel oil" pumps, which had no asbestos containing compounds. (D.I. 393 at 2) Plaintiff offers contrary evidence through Mr. Mauldin's testimony that Warren manufactured the "main feed" pumps present in the MMR on board the Forrestal. (D.I. 382 at 2, Ex. A at 143:21- 144:13) Moreover, such pumps contained original asbestos 11 However, see n.6, supra, granting Warren's motion as to Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. containing components. (Id. at 192:25-195:17, 233:2- 234:20, [*123] Ex. F at 90:19-91:13) Furthermore, Plaintiff cites to the Warren Technical Manual regarding product specifications for its pumps, which lists replacement packing, gaskets, and insulation containing asbestos. (Id. at 4, Ex. E) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a jury could determine that Warren supplied the main feed pumps on the Forrestal. Absent direct evidence of exposure to Warren's products, such as testimony of an eye-witness, "'substantial exposure is necessary to allow an inference from circumstantial evidence that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the injury.'" Walkup v. Air & Liquid Systems, Civ. No. 12-1635, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125301, 2014 WL 4447568, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2014) (Mem.) (quoting Harbour v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., Civ. No. 90-1414, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10867, 1991 WL 65201, at *4 (6th Cir. April 25, 1991)) (emphasis in original). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient in the instant case to create an issue of fact for the jury to resolve concerning whether Plaintiff had substantial exposure to a Warren pump containing asbestos components. In addition to identifying original insulation on the pumps, Mr. Mauldin described the removal of large gaskets that distributed packing material, which contained asbestos, and created dust in the MMR sufficient to cover every man working in the MMR from head to toe. (D.I. 382, Ex. A at 223:18-24, 224:12-15, 235:24- 236:2) Plaintiff, as a [*124] duty engineer, was frequently present in the MMR during pump overhauls. (Id. at 178:15- 184:4) I recommend that the jury should determine whether such circumstantial evidence proves substantial exposure. V. CONCLUSION As indicated in the chart infra and for the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the court GRANT Electrolux's motion for summary judgment, GRANT ABB's motion for summary judgment, GRANT Velan Valve's motion for summary judgment, GRANT GE's motion for summary judgment, GRANT CBS' motion for summary judgment, GRANT Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment, GRANT Owens- Illinois' motion for summary judgment, DENY Buffalo Pumps' motion for summary judgment, DENY-IN-PART Ingersoll Rand's motion for summary judgment, DENY Aurora's motion for summary judgment, DENY IMO's motion for summary judgment, and DENY-IN-PART Warren's motion for summary judgment. Go to Table2 This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *120 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 44 of 46 PageID #: 4294 Page 36 of 37 objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections and responses to the objections are limited to ten (10) pages each. The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the District Court. See Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. Appx. 924, 925 n.1 (3d Cir. 2006); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987). The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the court's website, http://www.ded.uscourts.gov . Dated: September 30, 2015 /s/ Sherry R. Fallon Sherry R. Fallon United States Magistrate Judge 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *124 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 45 of 46 PageID #: 4295 Page 37 of 37 Table1 (Return to related document text) Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment Electrolux Home Products Inc. GRANT ABB Inc. GRANT Velan Valve Corporation GRANT General Electric Company GRANT CBS Corporation GRANT Foster Wheeler LLC GRANT Owens-Illinois Inc. GRANT Buffalo Pumps Inc. DENY Ingersoll Rand Company DENY-IN-PART Aurora Pump Company DENY IMO Industries Inc. [*72] DENY Warren Pumps LLC DENY-IN-PART Table1 (Return to related document text) Table2 (Return to related document text) Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment Electrolux Home Products Inc. GRANT ABB Inc. GRANT Velan Valve Corporation GRANT General Electric Company GRANT CBS Corporation GRANT Foster Wheeler LLC GRANT Owens-Illinois Inc. GRANT Buffalo Pumps Inc. DENY Ingersoll Rand Company DENY-IN-PART Aurora Pump Company DENY IMO Industries Inc. DENY Warren Pumps LLC DENY-IN-PART [*125] Table2 (Return to related document text) End of Document 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137291, *124 Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-4 Filed 07/15/16 Page 46 of 46 PageID #: 4296 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MARK E. HILLYER, and CAROL HILLYER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : C.A. No.: 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paul A. Bradley, hereby certify that on this 15th day of July 2016, electronically filed Defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary of Judgment, with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and I hereby certify that I have thereby electronically served these documents upon all counsel of record who are registered with the Court’s CM/ECF system. MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC /s/ Paul A. Bradley Paul A. Bradley (DE Bar ID No. 2156) Antoinette D. Hubbard (DE Bar ID No. 2308) 1201 North Market Street, Suite 900 P.O. Box 288 Wilmington, DE 19899-0288 Telephone: (302) 425-5177 Facsimile: (302) 425-0180 pab@maronmarvel.com adh@maronmarvel.com Attorneys for Defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc. Case 1:15-cv-00378-GMS-SRF Document 150-5 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 4297