Featured Expert Contributor, Mass Torts—Asbestos
Robert H. Wright, a Partner with Horvitz & Levy LLP in Los Angeles, CA
Last month, the United States Supreme Court rejected the “bare metal” defense to products liability claims in maritime cases. Air & Liquid Systems v. DeVries, No. 17-1104, 2019 WL 1245520 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2019). Some have predicted that the decision marks the beginning of the end for that defense even outside the maritime context. But the prediction is premature. The DeVries decision comes after the highest courts in some states have already embraced the “bare metal” defense and in doing so rejected the same arguments that the DeVries majority has now endorsed. Those state decisions will continue to control in those jurisdictions, at least in non-maritime cases. Further, those state courts are unlikely to reverse course and accept arguments that they so recently rejected.
In DeVries, the families of naval veterans who had died of cancer brought products liability claims against the manufacturers of pumps, blowers, and turbines used on naval ships, claiming that the manufacturers were negligent in failing to warn of the risks of asbestos-containing insulation the Navy used with their products. The district court granted summary judgment for the manufacturers, holding that under the “bare metal” defense, the manufacturers were not liable for failing to warn about asbestos-containing products that they did not manufacture or supply. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the manufacturers had a duty to warn because it was “foreseeable” that the asbestos-containing products would be used with their products. Continue reading “Supreme Court’s DeVries Decision Doesn’t Spell the End of “Bare Metal” Defense in Asbestos Cases”