Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Plaintiffs allege the decedent, Dennis C. Payne, had asbestos exposure while working aboard a ship as a marine engineering student at the California Maritime Academy in the 1970s. Previously, General Electric was contracted to manufacture and install the turbine for the ship. In 1941, the ship was acquired by the U.S. Navy and then loaned to the California Maritime Academy to use as a training ship.
In February 1975, while Mr. Payne was a student with the California Maritime Academy, the ship developed a turbine problem while on maneuvers in Panama. The vessel was brought into port and the California Maritime Academy’s chief engineer, instructors and students – including Mr. Payne – inspected and performed repairs to the ship’s turbine which included, among other things, removing insulation from the inner workings of the GE turbine.
In light of these circumstances, plaintiffs allege GE’s turbine contained asbestos-containing insulation and other related materials, which resulted in Mr. Payne having exposure. Plaintiffs further claim this exposure resulted in Mr. Payne developing mesothelioma, from which he subsequently passed away.
On March 21, 2023, plaintiffs ultimately filed a Second Amended Complaint naming GE, among others, as defendants. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint alleges negligence under maritime law and California law, as well as other related claims. GE ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment upon the conclusion of discovery. Plaintiffs’ opposed GE’s motion for summary. Plaintiffs and GE agree maritime law governs the dispositive motion and this case.
After considering the totality of the record, the Federal District Court of California initially noted GE’s primary argument was plaintiffs cannot establish causation since plaintiffs have not sufficiently demonstrated GE’s turbine was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Payne’s claimed injury, as this case is similar to McIndoe.
The court was not persuaded by this argument. Unlike McIndoe, the court found plaintiffs in the instant matter specifically presented evidence including, but not limited to, deposition testimony that Mr. Payne had worked directly on the GE turbine and that he personally came into contact with the turbine’s insulation “all the time” from which there was dust that he could see during his time at the California Maritime Academy.
Similar evidence also showed Mr. Payne was present for an inspection of GE’s turbine(s) — which took approximately four to seven days and many hours each day — while standing only 10 feet away in March 1975. In addition, plaintiffs had presented expert evidence which indicates the work performed by Mr. Payne on GE’s turbine(s) aboard the ship would lead to the release of high concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers above background concentration levels.
As such, the court found plaintiffs presented sufficient, admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer the amount and duration of Mr. Payne’s alleged asbestos exposure. Thus, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether exposure to asbestos-containing products related to GE’s turbine(s) was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. Accordingly, the court denied GE’s motion for summary judgment.
Read the full decision here.
