May 3, 2018
Baumgartner v. Am. Std., Inc.is an interesting Rhode Island case which applied Ohio law, as the state of Ohio had the most significant relationship to the instant asbestos litigation. 2015 R.I. Super. LEXIS 91 (R.I. Super. Ct. 2015). The decision by Judge Gibney, the presiding asbestos judge in Rhode Island, discussed the conflict between Ohio and Rhode Island law with respect to the “bare-metal defense.”
Generally, the “bare-metal defense” indicates that a manufacturer of a product cannot be held liable for asbestos-containing products used in connection with its bare metal product if there is no evidence that the manufacturer was part of the chain of distribution for those products. Id. The bare-metal defense stands for the proposition that a manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by asbestos products, such as insulation, gaskets, and packing, that were incorporated into their products or used as replacement parts, but which they did not manufacture or distribute. Id.
While there is no ruling from the Rhode Island Supreme Court as to the issue of whether the “bare-metal defense” is recognized in this state, nevertheless it appears that this defense has been rejected by the lower court. Id. at 14-15. In Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc., Judge Gibney declined to adopt the “bare-metal defense, “finding that “Rhode Island tort law requires a more fact-specific and nuanced analysis to determine whether liability in negligence or strict liability may attach for third-party replacement parts.” 2013 R.I. Super. LEXIS 185, at *4 (R.I. Super. Oct. 21, 2013). As such, in Rhode Island, a defendant could be held liable for the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos even if such exposure was from a replacement part. Therefore, while “not precedential,” it appears that Rhode Island jurisprudence has rejected the “bare-metal defense” and supports recovery from a manufacturer of a product irrespective of whether the manufacturer’s original product contained asbestos or not. See Baumgartner at 15. The Baumgartnercourt concluded that Ohio and Rhode Island law differed on the issue of whether a product seller may be held liable for injuries suffered as a result of a plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos in the seller’s product when that asbestos came from non-original, replacement components.
Under Ohio law, a plaintiff may establish that a bare-metal manufacturer is liable if he or she can provide some evidence that the defendant explicitly specified or recommended the use of asbestos insulation in conjunction with a defendant’s product. Perry v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Prods. Liab. Trust, Case No. 608652 (Ohio Com. Pl. Oct 26, 2007) (Hanna, J.), Furthermore, a plaintiff may avoid summary judgment by presenting some evidence that he or she worked with asbestos that was part of the original product. Smart v. Crane Co., Case No. 703102 (Ohio Com. Pl.) (Spellacy, J.). Nevertheless, the fact that the defendant manufacturer may have foreseen that asbestos products could later have been used in conjunction with the original product, standing alone, is not sufficient to impose liability. Davis v. Bondex Int’l, Case No. 629433 (Ohio Com. Pl. Feb. 13, 2009) (Hanna, J.).
The Baumgartner court, while applying Ohio law, granted motions for summary judgment to the manufacturers of valves, strainers and pumps because these products functioned well without asbestos and the manufacturer did not mandate the use of either asbestos packing or gaskets. The Baumgartnercourt reasoned that there was no indication that the defendants’ products were delivered with asbestos insulation or that Mr. Baumgartner ever worked with the interior components of the valves, strainers and pumps. While Mr. Baumgartner applied insulation to the exterior of the valves, the insulation was neither manufactured nor directed to be used by the defendants. As such, the court found there was insufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that Mr. Baumgartner was exposed to the defendants’ asbestos-containing products. By the same token, the court denied the summary judgment motions presented by some of the boiler manufacturers, explaining that the asbestos-containing insulation may have been originally supplied with the boilers.
In sum, the “bare-metal defense” is not recognized in Rhode Island, whereas this defense is available to defendants in Ohio. For the reasons articulated above, it is important for defendants to assess possible choices of law and thoroughly analyze what defenses, if any, are available to them when true conflict exists between the laws of two states.