Virginia Smith et al. v. General Electric Co. et al. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Motion # 200.00)

FACTS

On October 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their operative complaint, a twelfth amended complaint, against numerous defendants.   The complaint is divided into fifteen “claims,” with each “claim” brought on behalf of an individual plaintiff.   Each claim is subdivided into several “counts.”   Generally, the first count alleges negligence and products liability for personal injuries and damages;  the second count seeks exemplary or punitive damages and, where applicable, the plaintiffs have added a third count, which alleges a loss of consortium.

The third claim of the complaint is brought on behalf of the estate of Edward DeCosta by the plaintiff, David Neusner, who is the executor of DeCosta's estate.   The first count, which is subsumed under the third claim, is based upon “NEGLIGENCE AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD DECOSTA FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, WRONGFUL DEATH AND DAMAGES.”   The second count, also subsumed under the third claim, is “FOR EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD DECOSTA.”

DISCUSSION

On July 19, 2013, the defendant, Crane Co., filed a motion for summary judgment as to the third claim of the plaintiffs' complaint on the basis that this plaintiff's decedent did not produce any evidence from which a jury could conclude that he was exposed to respirable asbestos from an asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by this defendant.   The defendant filed a memorandum and several exhibits in support of its motion, and the plaintiff also filed a memorandum in opposition accompanied by several exhibits.¹

In support of its motion, the defendant has submitted a document entitled “PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' STANDARD INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION.”   The decedent had responded to one of the defendant's interrogatories in the form of a chart, which consisted of five column headings:  “Dates of Employment;  Name and Address of Employer and Jobsite;  Job/Position;  Asbestos products used by you (including name of manufacturer if known );  Other asbestos products which [you ] allege you were exposed to (including name of manufacturer if known ).”   In relevant part, the decedent responded that he was employed at Electric Boat Corp. in Groton, Connecticut from “January 9, 1957–November 1957;  January 1965–February 1967;  June 1967–September 1967;  May 1971–February 1972;  November 1972–1998” as an electrician.   In the next column, which asked which asbestos products the decedent “used,” the decedent responded, “See exhibit A.” In the final column, the column requesting names of other asbestos products to which the decedent alleged exposure, the decedent responded, “See exhibit A.” The decedent also disclosed that he was employed from 1967 to 1971 at New England Textile & Electrical Company as a colorist and a maintenance man and, concerning asbestos products, he used electrical wires located in old commercial buildings.   In response to what other asbestos products he was exposed to, he again referenced “exhibit A.” The decedent did not designate any manufacturers' names in his responses to the above interrogatory.

Although the defendant contends that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to establish that the decedent was exposed to the defendant's alleged asbestos-containing products, the court finds that the defendant has not met its burden as to this issue.   The decedent failed to list the names of any asbestos product manufacturers in his interrogatory responses.   In addition, the court has no idea what information, relevant or otherwise, is contained in the referenced “Exhibit A,” as this document was not submitted to the court.

“Practice Book [§ 17–49] provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Patel v. Flexco Converters U.S.A., Inc., 309 Conn. 52, 56, 68 A.3d 1162 (2013).   In satisfying its burden, the movant is held to a strict standard.  “[T]he movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Maltas v. Maltas, 298 Conn. 354, 366, 2 A.3d 902 (2010).  “When documents submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment fail to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party has no obligation to submit documents establishing the existence of such an issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 11, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).

CONCLUSION

The defendant's evidence fails to establish the absence of all genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether the decedent was exposed to an alleged asbestos-containing product of the defendant.   Accordingly, the court denies the defendant's summary judgment motion.

BELLIS, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. On November 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a single omnibus memorandum in opposition to all of the defendant's motions for summary judgment..  FN1. On November 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a single omnibus memorandum in opposition to all of the defendant's motions for summary judgment.

Bellis, Barbara N., J.