Gay v. A.O. Smith Corp.

ALLISA D. GAY, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1311

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 17, 2021

Hon. William S. Stickman IV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Allisa D. Gay ("Plaintiff") sued Defendant Honeywell Inc. ("Honeywell") and various manufacturers and distributors on October 8, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and alleged that Decedent Carl E. Gay ("Decedent") developed mesothelioma from exposure to Honeywell's asbestos-containing products. On October 11, 2019, Defendant General Electric Co. filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Before the Court is Honeywell's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 852). The Court must determine whether Plaintiff properly identified Honeywell's product as a cause of Mr. Gay's disease and, ultimately, death. For the following reasons, Honeywell's Motion is granted.

I. Background

This case involves an alleged asbestos-related injury because of Mr. Gay's employment in the United States Navy from 1946 to 1958, the United States Air Force from 1958 to 1967, General Electric Co. from 1967 to 1974, Stone and Webster from 1974 to 1989 and from his automotive work starting in the 1940s. (See ECF Nos. 1-1; 1-2). Mr. Gay was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2019. (ECF No. 1-15, ¶ 165; ECF No. 675).

Mr. Gay was deposed over nine days—November 5-7, 11-13, 21-22, 25, 2019—and identified various manufacturers, suppliers and users of asbestos products. Mr. Gay died on April 12, 2020. (ECF No. 1-15, ¶ 165; ECF No. 675). His daughter, Allisa D. Gay, was named executor of her father's estate and filed an Amended Complaint on August 13, 2020. (ECF No. 692). Allisa Gay was substituted as Plaintiff. (Id.).

II. Relevant Facts

Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Gay developed mesothelioma from exposure to Honeywell's asbestos-containing products while working at the SM-1 facility in Virginia and the PM-1 facility in Wyoming. Plaintiff believes Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from Honeywell products including controls, valves and instruments. Mr. Gay maintained the valves and equipment at both facilities on an as-needed basis.

Mr. Gay worked at the SM-1 facility in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia as a maintenance worker from 1958 to 1961 and again from 1964 to 1967. He worked with various equipment including pumps, valves, switchgear and instruments. (ECF No. 955-1, ¶ 19). Mr. Gay also worked at the PM-1 facility in Sundance, Wyoming from 1961 to 1964. He recalled Honeywell valves and controls at this facility. He also worked near others who installed gaskets, packing and heat insulation. (Id. ¶ 20).

Generally, when repairing valves, Mr. Gay had to remove old gaskets from valve flanges, and valve packing glands. He typically removed gaskets with a wire brush, and this created dust that he breathed. He typically removed the packing with a packing puller or another tool, and this created dust which he breathed. Other workers in his vicinity followed the same procedures, andPlaintiff alleges Mr. Gay was exposed to and breathed dust because of their work as well. (Id. ¶ 15).

Mr. Gay testified that he recalled Honeywell controls at the SM-1 facility. (ECF No. 955-2).

174

Q. So there were instruments and controls in the facility?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you associate any manufacturer name with any of those?

A. I think all of our instrumentation was Honeywell.

175

Q. Did you ever have to perform any maintenance work on any of the instrumentation?

A. No—

Q. Did other work—

A. —I didn't.

Q. Did—did other workers in your vicinity do that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did some of the workers that you supervised do that work?

A. Yes.

Q. What sorts of maintenance work did you observe others doing on the instruments?

A. Calibration, cleaning, blowing the dust out of them. When you say instruments, you know, we're talking about panels, sometimes, that has a number of instruments on it. Or maybe it's just one big box with controls on it. A recorder, for instance.

* * *

176

You said that you associated the name Honeywell with those controls?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you associate that name with—

A. Name on it.

Q. What were those controls and sensors, what were they connected to out in the plant?

A. Everything from feedwater control . . .

(Id.).

Days later, Mr. Gay testified about Honeywell controls and equipment during his work at the SM-1 facility and PM-1 facility. (ECF No. 955-4).

69

Q. Was this the only Honeywell recorder that you recall at the SM-1 nuclear power plant?

A. No. We had—oh, recorder?

Q. Yeah. I'm just talking about the recorder right now.

A. I don't know that. We had a lot of Honeywell equipment—

Q. Okay.

70

A. —and I'm—I think that the majority of the recorders that was built into the Honeywell panels were Honeywell recorders.

* * *

73

* * *

Q. So would it be safe to say that you never saw any maintenance work being performed on these other pieces of Honeywell equipment at the SM-1 facility?

A. There was maintenance work performed on them, but as to what it was, I don't know. All I seen was the doors open.

Q. Okay.

A. Instrument techs doing something.

Q. I gotcha.

(Id.).

As for his experience at the PM-1 facility, Mr. Gay provided the following testimony:

83

* * *

Q. That's right. We did talk about that.

Now, before I move in to Honeywell valves—move on to Honeywell valves, there's a reference to Honeywell controls there. You didn't identify during your deposition—during your direct examination by your counsel any Honeywell controls at the PM-1 nuclear power plant, but in your affidavit you do identify Honeywell controls.

A. I believe that our control room did have Honeywell controllers in them.

84

Q. Okay. And in the control room at PM-1?

A. Yes.

* * *

Q. Okay. And—and just like the—the Honeywell instruments at SM-1, you didn't personally work on any Honeywell controls at PM-1.

A. No.

Q. Am I right?

A. No. Once again, it was instrumentation people.

* * *

86

Q. Okay. And would I be correct in saying that you don't have any personal knowledge that any of the Honeywell controls at PM-1 in Sundance, Wyoming, contained asbestos?

A. That's true, I do not.

Q. And would my statement be correct that you don't have a specific recollection of working around others performing any maintenance on any Honeywell controls at the PM-1 nuclear power plant?

A. I was around them when maintenance was performed. In the control room at the PM-1, they would come in, they would do check, pull out the in—instrumentation sections. . . .

* * *

92

* * *

Q. All right. So in the second sentence of that paragraph talking about the pieces of equipment you worked at PM-1, you mentioned Honeywell valves. And during your—during the direct examination conducted by your counsel, you never identified Honeywell as a manufacturer of any valves. And I want to ask you why have you made reference to Honeywell valves in your affidavit, specifically in paragraph 20?

A. When I wrote this, that was—at that time, I believe that I had seen Honeywell valves.

93

Q. Okay.

A. When we were discussing at deposition, it didn't come up, and, frankly, I couldn't tell you exactly where I seen the Honeywell valves.

Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you a few questions about the Honeywell valves. Okay?

A. Well, the ones I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Well, we'll just—we'll confirm that. Okay?

How is it that you associate the name Honeywell with valves, then, at—at PM-1?

A. I think they were part of our control valves.

Q. So you would identify Honeywell valves as being control valves?

A. Yes.

94

* * *

Did you know how it was operated? Did it have a handle? Or did any of these Honeywell control—

A. I think all of them were remote control.

Q. Remote. Do you recall the location specifically at PM-1 of any Honeywell control valve?

A. No, I do not.

Q. And, again, would I be correct in saying that you did not personally work on any Honeywell control valve at PM-1?

A. Not that I remember specifically, no.

* * *

96

Q. I understand. Would I be correct in saying that you wouldn't know how a Honeywell control valve was connected to any pipe in terms of whether it was threaded, welded, or flanged? Or am I wrong? Do you recall that?

A. No, I don't recall it, but it was undoubtedly flanged.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. Most valves were flanged. A control valve

97

especially would be flanged so if something went out, you—went wrong, you could take it out.

* * *

Q. Okay. So you wouldn't be able to tell me whether there was any asbestos-containing components or parts associated with the Honeywell control valve,

98

correct?

A. That's correct, except if it was flanged, it would have been—would have had gaskets on it.

Q. And you said "if," but you don't know specifically if a Honeywell control valve was flanged?

A. Specifically, no.

(ECF No. 955-4, pp. 4, 6, 7, 8).

In discovery responses filed by Honeywell in an unrelated case, Honeywell disclosed that some control valves used asbestos-containing internal gaskets or packing. Honeywell used internal gaskets and packing supplied by others. (ECF No. 955-5, pp. 2-3).

Honeywell, through its discovery responses from separate litigation, stated that it "marketed and sold insulated thermocouple wire and thermocouple extension wire." Further, "part of the insulation on some of the wire is believed to be braided chrysotile asbestos" from before 1950 through the early 1980s. Honeywell also manufactured controls with asbestos-containing phenolic molding compounds from before 1960 through the early 1980s. (ECF No. 955-8).

A corporate representative of Honeywell, Michael Chunko, testified in other litigations that some Honeywell control valves contained asbestos up until 1983. He testified that gaskets containing crocidolite asbestos fibers were used in some control valves used in acidic or corrosive conditions. Mr. Chunko stated that Honeywell did not provide an asbestos health warning along with Honeywell products. Mr. Chunko also...