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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Motion # 140.00)

The plaintiffs filed their operative complaint against numerous defendants on October 14, 2011.   At issue is the second “claim” of the complaint, brought on behalf of the estate of George Fusco against, inter alia, the defendant, ITT Corp., alleging negligence, products liability and exemplary or punitive damages.   The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment as to the second claim on the basis that this plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence from which a jury could conclude that the decedent was exposed to respirable asbestos from an asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by this defendant.   The defendant has submitted the plaintiff's responses to the defendant's interrogatories and requests for production in support of its motion.   The plaintiff's interrogatory responses identify various asbestos products to which the decedent was allegedly exposed and in this regard, the responses further provide, “see Exhibit A.” The interrogatory responses do not identify the names of any manufacturers of such products.   This evidence is insufficient to negate all questions of material fact with respect to whether the decedent was exposed to this defendant's products.   For example, 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.

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.

Bellis, Barbara N., J.