Third Circuit Latest to Hollow Out Bright Line Bare Metal Defense

by Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

On October 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held—in a case of first impression—that a manufacturer of a “bare metal” product may be liable for a plaintiff’s injuries caused by later added asbestos-containing materials.

Roberta G. Devries and Shirley McAfee were widows of husbands who served in the United States Navy. Each filed a Complaint against a group of manufacturers alleging that their husband contracted cancer as a result of asbestos exposure. Devries alleged that her husband worked aboard the U.S.S. Turner from 1957-60. During that time, he allegedly was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation and components that were added to the manufacturers’ products aboard the ship. McAfee made similar allegations about her husband’s experience and subsequent illness after stints aboard two ships and a naval shipyard.

The manufacturers moved for summary judgment, asserting that the “bare metal” defense absolved them from liability. The bare metal defense is an affirmative defense, usually applied in the context of maritime law, and dictates that manufacturers do not have to warn of potential dangers associated with exposure to a part of their product if they did not make or distribute that part. The District Court found that the defense applied, and granted summary judgment to the manufacturers. Devries and McAfee appealed.

Prior to Devries and McAfee’s appeal, the Third Circuit had yet to address the applicability of the bare metal defense. Some courts from other jurisdictions applied a bright line rule, holding that a manufacturer cannot be liable for injuries caused by asbestos-containing parts added later to their products. For example, in Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 496 (6th Cir. 2005), the Sixth Circuit held that a manufacturer could not “be held responsible for the asbestos contained in another product” such as replacement asbestos-containing gaskets and packing later added to the manufacturer’s products. Other courts have applied a more fact-specific standard, holding that a manufacturer could be liable if they knew or had reason to know that asbestos-containing parts would be used with their product. In other words, a manufacturer could only be liable if it was foreseeable that an asbestos-containing part would be added later (and, possible, whether it was foreseeable that those additions would cause injury).

The Third Circuit balanced both approaches in its analysis of Devries and McAfee’s appeal, and found that the bright-line rule was, put simply, too harsh. According to the court, “maritime law’s special solicitude for the safety and protection of sailors counsel[ed it] to adopt a standard-based approach to the bare-metal defense that permits a plaintiff to recover, at least in negligence, from a manufacturer of a bare-metal product when the facts show the plaintiff's injuries were a reasonably foreseeable result of the manufacturer’s conduct.” In re: Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 873 F.3d 232, 241 (3d Cir. 2017).

The Third Circuit set out a number of factors that would be relevant to the foreseeability analysis when assessing the viability of the bare metal defense. These factors include first a determination of whether the manufacturer could have known at the time its product was placed into the stream of commerce that asbestos was hazardous. Second, it must be determined whether the manufacturer could have known at the time its product was placed into the stream of commerce that “its product will be used with an asbestos-containing part” under any number of reasons, such as that (a) “the product was originally equipped with an asbestos containing part that could reasonably be expected to be replaced over the product’s lifetime;” (b) “the manufacturer specifically directed that the product be used with an asbestos-containing part;” or (c) “the product required an asbestos-containing part to function properly.” The court held that that the application of its newly adopted standard could drive different analyses and outcomes with regard to the bare metal defense. As a result, the court reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment so that standard could be applied.

This case is the latest in a string of cases from different jurisdictions where courts have applied different standards with regard to the bare metal defense. The Third Circuit is the latest to decide what limits, if any, are placed on assertion of the defense. If and until the Supreme Court takes up the issue, it is likely that the jurisdictional divide regarding the defense’s applicability will continue. Litigators representing manufacturers of products that may have had asbestos-containing parts later added to the products should be aware of how the defense has been applied in courts across the country, both state and federal. 

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Miles & Stockbridge P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.