Adele Grigitis, Administratrix of the Estate of Alfonse Grigitis et al. v. ABB (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Motion # 143.00)

The plaintiffs filed their operative complaint against numerous defendants on October 14, 2011.   At issue is the first “claim” of the complaint, brought on behalf of Alphonse Grigitis, against, inter alia, the defendant, CBS Corp., alleging negligence, products liability and exemplary or punitive damages.   The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment as to the first claim on the basis that this plaintiff has failed to produce “any competent evidence” demonstrating that the defendant had either “produced, manufactured, or sold any asbestos-containing products in connection with equipment manufactured by Westinghouse.” ¹  In support of its motion, the defendant has submitted an affidavit of its own attorney, a copy of the complaint, the decedent's death certificate, and his employment history.   The defendant also has attached the plaintiff's responses to the defendant's interrogatories and requests for production.   The plaintiff's interrogatory responses identify powdered asbestos as a product that the decedent “used” during his employment.   Further, the defendant attached, as Exhibit A to the interrogatory responses, a list of manufacturers and products to which, based upon the decedent's knowledge and belief, he had been exposed during the course of his employment and “Westinghouse turbines and other product and equipment” is enumerated on this list.   This evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the decedent was exposed to this defendant's products.   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).  “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).   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. The defendant explains that “CBS Corporation (a Delaware corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc.) is a successor by merger to CBS Corporation (a Pennsylvania corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation.)”.  FN1. The defendant explains that “CBS Corporation (a Delaware corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc.) is a successor by merger to CBS Corporation (a Pennsylvania corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation.)”

Bellis, Barbara N., J.