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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT # 203

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,” each “claim” is 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 sixth claim of the complaint is brought on behalf of the estate of Gilbert Victoria and Lucille Victoria personally, by the plaintiff, Lucille Victoria, the decedent's spouse and executor of the estate The first count, which is subsumed under the sixth claim, is based upon “NEGLIGENCE AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GILBERT VICTORIA FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, WRONGFUL DEATH AND DAMAGES.”   The second count, also subsumed under the sixth claim, is “FOR EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GILBERT VICTORIA,” and the third count, again subsumed under the sixth claim, is “FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ON BEHALF OF LUCILLE VICTORIA.”

DISCUSSION

On July 19, 2013, the defendant, Crane Co., filed a motion for summary judgment as to the sixth 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 defendant's interrogatories were submitted to the plaintiff in the form of a chart, consisting of the following 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 ).”   The responses provided by the plaintiff were entered under the column headings provided by the chart.   In relevant part, the plaintiff acknowledged that the decedent was employed at Plax/Monsanto in Stonington, Connecticut from “1954–1962, 1963–1986” as a “Utility Substitute Machine Operator/Machinist/Maintenance/Mold Mechanic/Mold Repair/Process Technician/Tool Programmer.”   In the following column, the response stated that the decedent “used” the following asbestos products:  “Wet Asbestos to wrap around core rods, Asbestos Dust, Asbestos Blankets, Asbestos Gloves.”   The plaintiff further declared that the decedent was employed at Electric Boat Corporation in Groton, Connecticut from “March 31, 1958–June 1, 1959” as a “Cutter/Burner.”   In the next column, which requested the asbestos products “used” by the decedent, the statement read “See exhibit A.” The next column requested information pertaining to other asbestos products to which the decedent alleged exposure and, under this heading, the plaintiff also declared “See exhibit A.”

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 plaintiff did not list the names of any asbestos product manufacturers in the interrogatory responses.   In addition, the court has no idea what information, relevant or otherwise, is contained in the referenced “Exhibit A,” because the defendant has not attached this document in support of its motion.

“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.