Products Liability Law Reporter

Clifton Little II was enlisted in the U.S. Navy and later worked at a naval shipyard. He was exposed to asbestos through products manufactured and installed by Hardie-Tynes Co., including steam turbine machinery. He developed mesothelioma at age 67 and has undergone chemotherapy to treat his condition.

Little and his wife sued Hardie-Tynes Co., alleging claims for negligence and products liability. In 2021, a court found that Little’s mesothelioma resulted from his exposure to a Hardie-Tynes product and made findings as to the plaintiffs’ damages.

Hardie-Tynes Co. contended that it was not liable under a successor liability theory, maintaining that although it had acquired a significant portion of another company’s assets, it did not assume any liability for products claims. The defendant also denied that it had manufactured any asbestos-containing products after the asset purchase.

After a bench trial on the issue of whether Hardie-Tynes Co. was liable under a successor liability theory, the court found that Hardie-Tynes Co. was a successor and incorporated the 2021 damages findings and conclusion that Little’s mesothelioma resulted from exposure to the defendant’s product. As a matter of law, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to entry of judgment against Hardie-Tynes Co. in the amount of approximately $5.5 million.

Citation: Little v. Hardie-Tynes Co., No. 2020-2-11266-6 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cnty. Jan. 9, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Justin Olson and Chandler H. Udo, both of Seattle.

Comment: In Gay v. A.O. Smith Corp., 2024 WL 2558735 (3d Cir. May 24, 2024), Carl Gay, who served in the U.S. Navy, attended a training course on nuclear-powered submarines. As part of his training, he repeatedly visited Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, which was owned by the federal government but operated by General Electric. Gay was diagnosed with mesothelioma after he retired. He sued General Electric, asserting that its conduct in exposing him to asbestos despite knowing of the risks proximately caused his illness. The district court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, holding that derivative sovereign immunity barred the claims of Gay’s daughter, who was substituted as plaintiff after his death. Affirming, the Third Circuit held that a contractor is derivatively immune from liability where its authority to carry out a project was validly conferred by Congress and its work was authorized and directed by the federal government. Here, the court said, General Electric’s main activities at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory were the design and manufacture of nuclear reactors and vessels, and these activities were authorized and directed by the government under validly conferred authority. Specifically, the court said that General Electric’s contract with the Navy was negotiated and executed under the First War Powers Act of 1941 and later adopted by the Atomic Energy Commission. The plaintiff also presented no evidence that General Electric had deviated from the Navy’s instructions or exceeded its contractual authority, the court found, concluding that General Electric was therefore entitled to assert derivative sovereign immunity in the case.