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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (MOTION # 207.00)

FACTS

On October 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their operative complaint against numerous defendants.   The complaint is divided into “claims,” and each claim is brought on behalf of an individual plaintiff.   The claim is then subdivided into several “counts.”   The tenth claim is brought on behalf of the estate of Larry L. Schuhardt and Marilyn E. Schuhardt, personally.   It alleges negligence, products liability, exemplary or punitive damages and loss of consortium.

DISCUSSION

On July 19, 2013, the defendant, Crane Co., filed a motion for summary judgment as to the tenth claim 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 filed a memorandum in opposition with 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 presented in the form of a chart with the following 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 responses indicated that the decedent was employed at Electric Boat Corp., in Groton, Connecticut, from March 6, 1958–March 11, 1994, as a “Pipefitter/Supervisor.”   The decedent “used” “Asbestos Insulation, Gaskets, & Blankets, & Johns Manville Asbestos Products;  See exhibit A.” In the final column, which requested names of other asbestos products to which the decedent alleged exposure, the response again referenced “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.   Under Connecticut practice, the defendant, as the movant, must first establish its “entitlement to summary judgment ․ [then ] the burden shifts to [the] plaintiff to show that a genuine issue of fact exists justifying a trial.”  (Emphasis added;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 304, 320, 77 A.3d 726 (2013).   The plaintiff's interrogatory responses identify “Johns Manville Asbestos Products” as those “used” by the decedent.   This evidence, however, is insufficient to negate all questions of material fact with respect to whether the decedent was exposed to this defendant's products.   The interrogatory responses also identify an “Exhibit A” when disclosing which asbestos products were used by the decedent.   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 motions for summary judgment filed by this defendant..  FN1. On November 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a single omnibus memorandum in opposition to all of the motions for summary judgment filed by this defendant.

Bellis, Barbara N., J.