Coffman v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc.

615 S.W.3d 888

Carolyn COFFMAN, et al.

v.ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

No. E2017-01985-SC-R11-CV

Supreme Court of Tennessee, AT KNOXVILLE.

May 19, 2020 Session¹

FILED January 4, 2021

Roger A. Page, J.

This is a product liability action stemming from occupational exposure to asbestos. Pertinent to this appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Coffman ("Appellees") asserted claims against the manufacturers of certain equipment ("Equipment Defendants") under the Tennessee Products Liability Act for failing to warn of dangers for exposure to asbestos-containing products that the Equipment Defendants did not themselves manufacture or sell. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Equipment Defendants and the Court of Appeals reversed. This Court granted the Equipment Defendants’ application in part and directed the parties to address: "Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Equipment Defendants had a duty to warn of the dangers associated with the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing materials manufactured and sold by others."² We have concluded that the Equipment Defendants had no duty to warn on the facts and law applicable here. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This products liability case was originally filed by Donald Coffman, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and his wife, Carolyn Coffman ("Appellees").³ Mr. Coffman worked at the Tennessee Eastman chemical plant ("Tennessee Eastman") between the years of 1968 and 1997. During his career as an equipment mechanic at Tennessee Eastman, Mr. Coffman repaired and replaced equipment that included pumps, valves, steam traps, gaskets and piping while working around packing and insulation. According to Appellees, many of these products contained asbestos. Mr. Coffman spent most of his time working in and around "Building 55," in which acid from other divisions was distilled, reclaimed, and refined. The piping system at Tennessee Eastman carried highly corrosive steam and acids that required the equipment to be repaired daily and sometimes replaced entirely.

After Mr. Coffman developed mesothelioma, Appellees filed suit alleging that Mr. Coffman's exposure to asbestos at his workplace caused him to develop cancer. Specifically, Appellees alleged that Mr. Coffman was exposed to asbestos while working at Tennessee Eastman in three ways: by breathing in dust created by asbestos-containing insulation; by breathing in dust created by the removal of asbestos-containing gaskets; and by breathing in dust created by the removal of asbestos-containing packing. The original complaint included claims for negligence, strict liability, gross negligence, and negligence per se , against nearly thirty defendants.⁴ These defendants included an independent contractor whose insulators removed and installed asbestos-containing insulation at Tennessee Eastman, a manufacturer of asbestos-containing packing used by Tennessee Eastman, and several industrial equipment manufacturers, including DeZurik, Inc.; Flowserve Corporation f/k/a The Duriron Company, Inc.; Clark Reliance Company, Jerguson Gage and Valve Division; Armstrong International, Inc.; Crane Company; Fisher Controls International, LLC; Ingersoll-Rand Company⁵ ; Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., Metso Automation USA, Inc.; and the William Powell Company (collectively referred to as the "Equipment Defendants"). Appellees claim that the materials needed and used to repair and maintain the Equipment Defendants’ products contained asbestos.

Appellees alleged causes of action against the Equipment Defendants under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978, Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 29-28-101 through -108. They claimed that the Equipment Defendants were liable for Mr. Coffman's illness because he was exposed to asbestos while working with or near the Equipment Defendants’ products, such as industrial valves, pumps, and steam traps, that were supplied to Tennessee Eastman several years earlier. They further asserted that the Equipment Defendants were subject to liability because their products were unreasonably dangerous and because the Equipment Defendants failed to adequately warn users of potential asbestos exposure resulting from the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing materials manufactured and sold by others. The products alleged to have contained asbestos included: insulation applied to the exterior of the equipment post-sale; asbestos-containing flange gaskets applied to the exterior of the equipment post-sale; asbestos-containing replacement gaskets integrated into the equipment post-sale; and asbestos-containing replacement packing integrated into the equipment post sale. These later-affixed asbestos-containing products were manufactured and sold by other entities with no involvement from the Equipment Defendants. According to Appellees, the Equipment Defendants were liable under a duty-to-warn theory because it was foreseeable, and even intended, that their equipment be repaired and maintained with asbestos-containing materials.

Each Equipment Defendant moved for summary judgment and asserted that they were entitled to summary judgment on claims related to asbestos exposure arising from products that they did not themselves make, sell, or distribute. As is pertinent to this appeal, the trial court determined that the Equipment Defendants affirmatively negated any duty to warn of asbestos with respect to Appellees’ claims arising from the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing insulation, flange gaskets, replacement internal gaskets, and replacement packing that were manufactured and sold by others. Further, the trial court found the duty to warn to be an essential element of Appellee's negligence and strict liability claims under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (the "TPLA"). Therefore, following multiple hearings, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Equipment Defendants with respect to failure-to-warn claims for products made and sold by others. The trial court certified these orders as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Appellees filed separate notices of appeal against twelve defendants regarding the trial court's dismissal of their claims. The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases on appeal pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Several issues were presented to the Court of Appeals – only one of which is at issue before this Court.⁶ In short, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court's holding that the Equipment Defendants had affirmatively negated their duty to warn, which was an essential element of Appellees’ negligence and strict liability claims, and ultimately vacated the final judgments entered by the trial court. As it relates to the appeal before us, the Court of Appeals held that the Equipment Defendants owed a common law "duty to warn about the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing" products "manufactured and sold by others," and were therefore subject to liability under the TPLA.⁷

The Equipment Defendants have appealed this holding. It bears repeating that the Equipment Defendants concede that this ground for summary judgment is applicable only to Appellees’ claims arising from the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing insulation, flange gaskets, replacement internal gaskets, and packing materials that were manufactured and sold by others. This opinion, therefore, does not address any liability of the Equipment Defendants for Mr. Coffman's exposure to asbestos-containing products that were included with the Equipment Defendants’ products at the time of sale.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

This appeal originates from the trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals’ partial reversal of the trial court's order. We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo with no presumption of correctness. Bain v. Wells , 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). Under Rule 56.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. On appeal, we must determine whether the moving party satisfied its burden of production "(1) by affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party's evidence at the summary judgment stage is insufficient to establish the nonmoving party's claim or defense." Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC , 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015).

More specifically, the issue presented for review concerns statutory construction, which presents a question of law, and we likewise review such questions de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Dycus , 456 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tenn. 2015) (citing State v. Springer , 406 S.W.3d 526, 532-33 (Tenn. 2013) ; State v. Marshall , 319 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn. 2010) ; State v. Wilson , 132 S.W.3d 340, 341 (Tenn. 2004) ); Carter v. Bell , 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009).

When engaging in statutory interpretation, "well-defined precepts" apply. State v. Frazier , 558 S.W.3d 145, 152 (Tenn. 2018) (quoting Tenn. Dep't of Corr. v. Pressley , 528 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tenn. 2017) ); State v. Howard , 504 S.W.3d 260, 269 (Tenn. 2016) ; State v. McNack , 356 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tenn. 2011). "The most basic principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope." Howard , 504 S.W.3d at 269 (quoting Owens v. State , 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995) ); Carter , 279 S.W.3d at 564 (citing State v....