Alberes v. Anco Insulations, Inc.

Citations: 156 So. 3d 795; 2014 La. App. Unpub. LEXIS 706; 2013 La.App. 4 Cir. 1549; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 3161; 2014 WL 6982477Docket: No. 2013-CA-1549

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 9, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Edward A. Alberes and his wife, Anna A. Alberes, sought damages for Mr. Alberes’ asbestosis, claiming it resulted from asbestos exposure during his employment at B.F. Goodrich Corporation. Goodrich filed for summary judgment, arguing that the appellants failed to prove that the exposure at its facility was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Alberes’ condition. The trial court granted the summary judgment. However, upon appellate review, it was determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Mr. Alberes’ exposure at Goodrich significantly contributed to his asbestosis, which constituted reversible error. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision.

In October 2008, the appellants initiated legal action due to Mr. Alberes’ asbestosis contracted from 1953 to 2006 while working various jobs, including a short stint as a pipefitter helper at Goodrich in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Mr. Alberes described his work with Garlock gaskets containing asbestos, which involved tasks that released asbestos fibers into the air. He noted a lack of respiratory protection provided by Goodrich despite the presence of supervisors. Expert testimony from industrial hygienist Frank Parker indicated that Mr. Alberes’ work exposed him to asbestos levels above acceptable limits, contributing significantly to his risk of asbestosis. Dr. Judd Shellito corroborated that all asbestos exposure was significant, while Goodrich's expert Dr. Robert Jones acknowledged the cumulative nature of asbestos exposure. The appellants maintained that Mr. Alberes’ exposure at Goodrich was a significant factor in his asbestosis, while Goodrich argued that the appellants failed to demonstrate regular exposure necessary for causation.

Mr. Alberes was exposed to asbestos at Goodrich's Plaquemine facility for only five days during a turnaround job, which Goodrich argues is insignificant compared to his long career as a laborer, pipefitter helper, and crane operator. Goodrich contends that this limited exposure does not satisfy the substantial contributing factor test, especially given his exposure at other sites. Consequently, the trial court granted Goodrich's motion for summary judgment, leading to the appellants' appeal.

The appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, applying the same criteria as the trial court. A motion for summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, including pleadings and affidavits, demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgments are favored in law, with all reasonable factual inferences drawn in favor of the opposing party. Credibility determinations and the weighing of conflicting evidence are not permitted during this process.

The appellants argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, asserting that they provided evidence indicating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Mr. Alberes' asbestos exposure at Goodrich significantly contributed to his asbestosis. The court acknowledges the established causal relationship between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, necessitating an evaluation of the evidence by the trier of fact to determine any remaining genuine issues concerning Goodrich's liability.

In Quick v. Murphy Oil Co., the court emphasized that establishing liability in asbestos claims requires demonstrating causation through traditional tort theories like negligence and products liability. Asbestos cases often involve multiple defendants and utilize the doctrine of concurrent causation, which assumes that multiple parties may have significantly contributed to the plaintiff's injury. Claimants must show significant exposure to the asbestos product for it to be deemed a substantial factor in their injury.

In this case, Mr. Alberes’ exposure to asbestos at Goodrich’s facility must be proven as a substantial contributing factor to his asbestosis for the appellants to succeed. Goodrich argued that Mr. Alberes' limited five-day exposure during a long career in various roles was not substantial, and cited statistical analysis of his exposure duration to support its position. Goodrich further contended that testimony regarding cumulative exposure undermined the substantial factor test.

However, the court referenced previous rulings indicating that short-term exposure can still be a substantial factor, regardless of longer exposures elsewhere. The court rejected Goodrich's argument that minimal exposure should lead to dismissal, clarifying that the substantial factor test focuses on the quality rather than the duration of exposure. The trial court's summary judgment, based solely on the length of exposure at Goodrich compared to other employment, was deemed erroneous. The appellants demonstrated sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue regarding whether Mr. Alberes’ exposure at Goodrich was a substantial contributing factor to his asbestosis.

Mr. Alberes acknowledged his awareness of working with asbestos-containing products, specifically noting the release of asbestos fibers into the air during the removal and replacement of gaskets. He stated that he was neither advised to wear respiratory protection nor provided with it by Goodrich. Expert testimony from Mr. Parker indicated that Mr. Alberes’ handling of asbestos gaskets exposed him to significant asbestos concentrations, contributing to his risk of developing asbestosis. Dr. Shellito emphasized that asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural plaques are caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers, with exposure being cumulative. Dr. Jones corroborated this, affirming that all asbestos exposure contributes to the disease. Goodrich did not present evidence to dispute these claims, only providing Mr. Alberes’ deposition and employment duration. They failed to demonstrate that his exposure was not a significant factor in his asbestosis. The standard for summary judgment is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, with any doubts favoring the non-moving party. The determination of whether Goodrich's breach of duty was a substantial factor in Mr. Alberes' injuries is a factual question. Given the evidence, it is concluded that reasonable minds could disagree on the matter, leading to the finding that the trial court erred in granting Goodrich's motion for summary judgment. The ruling is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Garlock gaskets were specifically mentioned as the products Mr. Alberes worked with during his employment at Goodrich.