|
Products
Liability/Asbestos Case Alert: California Supreme Court Applies Oklahoma
Law To Defeat Plaintiff’s Claim of Mesothelioma
On February 19,
2010, in McCann v. Foster Wheeler
LLC, S162435 (“McCann”),
the California Supreme Court unanimously held that California's interest
in affording a remedy to a California resident who was exposed to
asbestos in another state was outweighed by the State of Oklahoma’s
interests in providing fair treatment to, and an appropriate incentive
for, business enterprises.
In McCann, plaintiff was allegedly
exposed to asbestos in Oklahoma over a two-week period in July 1957,
nearly 50 years prior to the time he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Plaintiff believed he had "been around" a Foster Wheeler boiler
for two or three days and had occasionally observed the process of
installing asbestos insulation into it. Plaintiff became a resident of
California in 1975. He filed his complaint in July 2005, naming Foster
Wheeler and other numerous defendants.
Foster
Wheeler responded by filing a motion for summary judgment arguing that:
1) the action should be governed by Oklahoma law
rather than California law, and
2) Oklahoma’s statute of repose barred
plaintiff's cause of action against Foster Wheeler.
The trial court
granted Foster Wheeler’s motion and entered judgment in its favor.
The Second Appellate District disagreed and reversed, and the Supreme
Court granted review.
The Supreme
Court concluded that the Court of Appeal failed to accurately assess
Oklahoma's interests embodied in its statute of repose which is
applicable to manufacturers and designers of large, specially designed
equipment installed in industrial buildings. The Court further noted that
when a state adopts a rule of law limiting liability for commercial
activity conducted within the state in order to provide fair treatment
to, and an appropriate incentive for, business enterprises, that state
ordinarily has an interest in having that policy apply to out-of-state
companies that conduct business within the state. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court held that Oklahoma law should be applied to bar the
plaintiff’s claims against Foster Wheeler.
An
interesting question remains unresolved. Suppose McCann's exposure to
asbestos had occurred in four different states with four separate
defendants, with only the State of Oklahoma having a statute of repose.
Would the Oklahoma defendant be immune from liability, yet the remaining
defendants be able to put on evidence about McCann's exposure to asbestos
in Oklahoma in order to reduce their own percentage of liability?
Impact On
Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court
The
unanimous holding in McCann may
provide valuable insight into the view of the Court in two other asbestos
cases now before it, O'Neil v.
Crane Company, S177401 (review granted, October 28, 2009) (lead case)
and Merrill v. Leslie Controls,
S178957 (review granted, February 3, 2010). These cases present the issue
of whether a manufacturer of valves and fittings installed on Navy ships,
and designed to be used with asbestos packing, gaskets and insulation,
may rely upon the "component parts" defense or related theories
to preclude strict liability for asbestosis injuries suffered by seamen
on those ships. We believe McCann is a reflection of the high
court’s attitude toward asbestos cases in California, and believe
that it is more likely than not that O'Neill, which held manufacturers
liable for furnishing component parts, will be overturned, and Merrill,
which exonerated the component parts manufacturers, will become the law
in California. While not a valid factor for consideration, the judiciary's
budget problems may subconsciously be a factor. We will monitor these
cases and provide updates accordingly.
This document is
intended to provide you with general information about products liability
and asbestos related litigation. The contents of this document are not
intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have questions about
the contents of this alert, please contact William “Skip”
Martin at 310-215-7572 or wmartin@hbblaw.com,
Jules Zeman at 310-215-7742 or jzeman@hbblaw.com,
Krsto Mijanovic at 310-215-7589 or kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
or contact your preferred Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP attorney.
This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.
|
