May 31, 2018
Third Circuit Decides Case of First Impression
The “bare-metal defense” generally maintains that a product manufacturer is not liable for asbestos-related injuries if the original product was “bare metal” and asbestos materials were later added to the product. In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation recently held that maritime law allows a manufacturer of a “bare metal product to be held liable for asbestos-related injuries when circumstances indicate that injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of the manufacturer’s actions.”
In In re Asbestos, the plaintiffs, Roberta G. Devries and Shirley McAfee, alleged that their husbands had been exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy and, as a result, contracted cancer and ultimately died. The plaintiffs each brought an action for negligence against a number of product manufacturers. In response, the manufacturers separately filed motions for summary judgment invoking the “bare-metal defense.” The district court granted these motions. On appeal, the Third Circuit addressed the following question: “When, if ever, should a manufacturer of a product that does not contain asbestos be held liable for an asbestos-related injury most directly caused by parts added on to the manufacturer’s product?”
In addressing this question, the Third Circuit recognized the split in authority concerning the availability of the “bare-metal defense.”The Third Circuit noted that some federal jurisdictions apply a bright-line rule in which “a manufacturer of a bare-metal product is never liable for injuries caused by later-added asbestos-containing products” while others apply a “fact-specific standard” where liability depends on whether the injury was “a reasonably foreseeable result of the manufacturer’s conduct.” In adopting a fact-specific standard, the Third Circuit primarily relied upon the principle of “special solicitude” for the safety of sailors under maritime law. The Court reasoned that this principle called for a more “liberal” and “humane” standard that “will permit a greater number of deserving sailors to receive compensation” for their alleged injuries. Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment and remanded the actions to the district court.
In re Asbestos will have a significant impact on asbestos litigation in the Third Circuit, and undoubtedly influence future cases addressing the availability of the “bare-metal defense” under maritime law. For the time being, however, the fate of the “bare-metal defense” in the Third Circuit is unclear as the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed toreview the In re Asbestos decision in the next term. As such, there is still hope for a bright-line rule that favors defendants.