Court: United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
In this asbestos action, plaintiff Linwood W. Pierce alleged he was exposed to asbestos throughout his career as a welder and pipefitter from the mid-1960s to 2013. After plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2021, he filed a complaint asserting claims against various companies that manufactured, distributed and sold asbestos-containing products during his career, including Ameron International Corporation.
With regard to Ameron, plaintiff claimed that he performed various jobs at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina in the 1970s where he replaced much of Camp Lejeune’s condensate line with Bondstrand pipe, which was manufactured by Ameron.
Ameron, however, disputed whether the pipe plaintiff installed at Camp Lejeune was in fact Bondstrand pipe. Specifically, Ameron argued that plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he uses “Bondstrand” as a generic term and that plaintiff conceded that he did not actually know who supplied or manufactured the pipe he installed. Rather, plaintiff asserted that he believed the pipe was Ameron because he remembered “hearing the name.”
Ameron ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of its motion, Ameron provided an affidavit of corporate representative, Ralph Friedrich, who acknowledged that Ameron sold pipe to the military. However, during his career with Ameron, Mr. Friedrich had no personal involvement with Camp Lejeune and could not confirm that Bondstrand pipe was ever installed therein. Ameron also did not possess sales records from the relevant era. Likewise, plaintiff did not possess project specs or other records detailing the work he purportedly completed at Camp Lejeune.
With regard to product identification, the court noted that the factual record was devoid of direct evidence supporting plaintiff’s averment that he installed Bondstrand pipe. However, there remained “at least some circumstantial evidence in support of [Plaintiff’s] recollection” given that Ameron conceded that it sold pipe to the military and that plaintiff’s testimony about the appearance of the Bondstrand pipe was “generally fairly accurate.” All in all, per the court, plaintiff raised sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a triable issue on the fact that the Bondstrand pipe installed at Camp Lejeune was manufactured by Ameron.
Notwithstanding product identification, the court further noted that, at summary judgment, plaintiff must also demonstrate that the Bondstrand pipe purportedly manufactured by Ameron contained asbestos, and that plaintiff was exposed to the asbestos with the necessary frequency, regularity, and proximity, such that was the probable cause of his disease. Here, plaintiff claimed that he cut and fit Bondstrand pipe, which created dust, in order to place a fitting inside, and that this dust exposed him to asbestos and ultimately caused his disease.
Ameron, however, argued that during the time plaintiff worked at Camp Lejeune, Ameron’s Series 2000 pipe was the only type of Ameron pipe approved for use under military specifications. Ameron further noted that its Series 2000 pipe never contained asbestos. Regarding pipe fittings, plaintiff specifically testified that fittings would never get cut during the pipe installation process.
In the end, the court determined that plaintiff failed to present evidence demonstrating that he ever shaved, cut or otherwise manipulated the fittings in a manner that would have released dust, even if the fittings did contain asbestos. As a result, “no reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence presented . . . that [Plaintiff] was exposed to [Ameron’s fittings] with the necessary, frequency, regularity, and proximity, such that it was the probable cause of [his] later development of mesothelioma.”
Accordingly, the court granted Ameron’s summary judgment motion on all claims.
Read the full decision here.
