Court: Appellate Court of Maryland
A Maryland appellate court has affirmed a lower court’s decision that granted summary judgment to the defense in a toxic substance exposure case.
In the case of Hughes v. Apu Consol. Inc., the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision to grant appellees’ summary judgment, finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact, and the prior mass action Release Agreement, signed in 2003 by appellant releasing appellees from liability was valid as a matter of law.
In 1998, plaintiff-appellant Edward T. Hughes, a railroad employee working for Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and APU Consolidated Inc., was a plaintiff in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) mass action for negligence resulting from exposure to asbestos and other toxic substances from which he was diagnosed with asbestosis and other pulmonary issues.
In 2003, Hughes signed a voluntary Release Agreement that released appellees, Conrail and APU from liability for all claims or actions relating to exposure to asbestos and other toxic substances. Hughes received $12,500 as consideration for the release and settlement.
In 2022, following a diagnosis of bladder cancer, Hughes sued appellees again under FELA, asserting that his exposure to diesel and exhaust fumes was the cause of the cancer. Appellees moved for summary judgment on the ground that the release barred the 2022 claim from proceeding. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.
Currently, there are two competing approaches for evaluating the validity of a release. Though neither the Fourth Circuit nor the District Court for the District of Maryland has opined in a FELA case regarding the validity of a release, Maryland has adopted and utilized the Wicker v. Consol. Rail Corp. test, 142 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1998) in various related cases. In the Wicker case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the Sixth Circuit’s bright-line rule, holding “that a release does not violate [Section] 5 provided it is executed for valid consideration as part of a settlement, and the scope of the release is limited to those risks which are known to the parties at the time the release is signed.” Wicker v. Consol. Rail Corp., 142 F.3d at 701, 690 (3d Cir. 1998). Furthermore, the court held that claims “relating to unknown risks do not constitute ‘controversies,’ and may not be waived under [Section] 5 of FELA.” Id. The court states that, whether a release is valid or void under Wicker’s approach to Section 5 turns on whether a risk is known to both the employer and the employee when they executed the release.
In the case at bar, the court held that no genuine dispute of material fact existed, finding that the unambiguous plain language of the release was evidence that Hughes knew that cancer was a known risk of his exposure to asbestos and other toxic substances at the time that he voluntarily executed the agreement. However, as the plain language of the release is not conclusive, the court additionally examined the release to determine whether it attempted to cover all liability as is prohibited under [Section] 5. The court found that it did not and was in fact executed by Hughes in settlement of his FELA claim for pulmonary issues and “any and all forms of cancer” related to exposure to asbestos and other toxic substances.
In determining the validity of the release, the court noted that though a party may attack the validity of a FELA release even when, on its face, the release appears valid, the party who attacks the release “bears the burden of establishing the invalidity of the purported release,” which they state appellant has not done. The court held that the release was valid because it was limited in scope and because it was not “too broad,” nor did it release the appellees for all injuries that Hughes could have incurred while employed by them; instead, it only released appellees for injuries related to Hughes’ exposure to toxic substances. Thus, the court found the release to be valid as a matter of law and affirmed the Circuit Court’s ruling.
Read the full decision here.
