Page 31 - FDCC Insights Spring 2022

also produced partial documents regarding two Navy Essex class aircraft carriers which included insulation attachment drawings created by CBS. The District Court determined this evidence was irrelevant as to whether GE or CBS directed the incorporation of asbestos insulation with their turbines for the Turner. (emphasis added in the District Court’s opinion)
The second method of proof was also not met as Plaintiffs failed to show that GE and CBS made the turbines with asbestos insulation attached. There was little dispute that the maritime turbines were delivered without asbestos insulation. Because asbestos insulation was not attached to the turbines, it followed that GE and CBS did not make a product that would require replacement with a similar part.
Finally, under the third method of proof, Plaintiffs failed to show that the turbines were useless without asbestos insulation. Both parties admitted that non-asbestos, but functionally equivalent, insulation types were available, known to, and approved for use by the Navy that would have allowed the turbines to function properly. Because the turbines were not useless without the asbestos insulation, Plaintiffs failed to prove the third method. With all three methods failing, summary judgment was awarded for Defendants.
Analysis
The District Court restricted its analysis to the first prong of the bare metal defense test because Plaintiffs failed to establish, through the three available methods, that the products “required” incorporation of the asbestos insulation. Evidence disproving these three methods proved key to the District Court’s analysis, including testimony from experts, produced schematics for the ship in question, and product specifications for the turbines. 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 failure by Plaintiffs to establish this prong should lead to dismissal. Defendants should look to utilize this defense in the maritime tort context, when possible, and sink Plaintiffs’ chances of bringing these claims to trial.
Evelyn Fletcher Davis is an FDCC Defense Counsel Member and a Partner with Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP in Atlanta, GA. Contact her at: edavis@hpylaw.com. She was assisted in writing the article by Eric T. Hawkins and Timur Dikec who are also with the firm.
Insights SPRING2021
29