Page 30 - FDCC Insights Spring 2022

Ct. 986 (2019). This new maritime bare metal test states:
In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, 139 S. Ct. 986, 995 (U.S. 2019).
This first prong of the maritime bare metal defense is a powerful tool when drafting motions for summary judgment for product manufacturers shipping bare metal products, as the failure by Plaintiffs to establish this prong should lead to dismissal.
Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified the “requires” prong of
the bare metal test, explaining that “the product in effect requires the part in order for the integrated product to function as intended” in three certain related situations, including “when (i) a manufacturer directs that the part be incorporated; (ii) a manufacturer itself makes the product with a part that the manufacturer knows will require replacement with a similar part; or (iii) a product would be useless without the part.” Id. at 995-96 (citations omitted). In this case, the “product” was the turbines, and the “part” was the asbestos- containing insulation.
The District Court, upon remand, determined Plaintiffs did not meet any of the three methods of proof for the “requires” prong of the bare metal defense under maritime law. First, Plaintiffs produced no relevant evidence that GE and CBS specified or directed the incorporation of asbestos insulation with the type of turbines used onboard the U.S.S. Turner. Plaintiffs attempted to establish this method of proof by producing evidence that some land-based turbines were manufactured by GE and CBS with asbestos insulation. They
28
Insights SPRING2021