Sign Up for Vincent AI
Whelan v. Armstrong Int'l Inc.
Sean Marotta argued the cause for appellant Ford Motor Co. (Hogan Lovells US and K&L Gates, attorneys; Sean Marotta, Joseph F. Lagrotteria, and Adam G. Husik, Newark, on the briefs).
Karen J. Stanzione-Conte argued the cause for appellants Cleaver-Brooks Inc. and Crown Boiler Co. (Reilly, McDevitt & Henrich, attorneys; Karen J. Stanzione-Conte and Michelle B. Cappuccio, on the briefs).
Jeffrey S. Kluger argued the cause for appellant Armstrong International Inc. (McGivney, Kluger & Cook, attorneys; Jeffrey S. Kluger and Christopher M. Longo, on the briefs).
Meghan C. Goodwin argued the cause for appellant Burnham LLC (Clyde & Co. US, attorneys; Jeffrey Fegan, of counsel and on the briefs, and Meghan C. Goodwin and Daren S. McNally, on the briefs).
Patrick K.A. Elkins submitted a brief on behalf of appellant Johnson Controls Inc. (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, attorneys; Patrick K.A. Elkins and Bryan M. Killian of the District of Columbia and Connecticut bars, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).
Sara K. Saltsman submitted a brief on behalf of appellant Carrier Corp. (Mayfield, Turner, O'Mara & Donnelly, attorneys; Sara K. Saltsman, on the briefs).
Christopher M. Placitella argued the cause for respondent Arthur G. Whelan (Cohen Placitella & Roth and The Lanier Law Firm, attorneys; Rachel A. Placitella, Red Bank, and Shannon K. Tully, on the briefs).
Amber R. Long argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Levy Konigsberg, attorneys; Amber R. Long and Moshe Maimon, on the brief).
Michael E. Waller submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (K&L Gates and U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, attorneys; Michael E. Waller, Newark, Tara L. Pehush, Michael B. Schon (U.S. Chamber Litigation Center), of the Arizona and the District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, Nicholas P. Vari (K&L Gates), of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, Michael J. Ross (K&L Gates), of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Jake D. Morrison (K&L Gates), of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).
Anita Hotchkiss submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (Goldberg Segalla, attorneys; Anita Hotchkiss, Princeton, and H. Lockwood Miller III, Newark, on the brief).
Phil S. Goldberg submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc. (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, attorneys; Phil S. Goldberg and Mark A. Behrens, of the Virginia and the District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).
Christopher J. Dalton submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, attorneys; Christopher J. Dalton, Newark, and Linda P. Reig, on the brief).
Thomas Comerford submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (Weitz & Luxenberg, attorneys; Thomas Comerford, of counsel and on the brief, and Jason P. Weinstein, of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).
Exposure to asbestos is a known cause of a deadly form of cancer called mesothelioma. Defendants manufactured or distributed products integrated with asbestos-containing components. In this common law, failure-to-warn product-liability action, plaintiff Arthur Whelan alleges that he contracted mesothelioma while working on defendants' products and, in particular, their asbestos-containing components or the asbestos-containing replacement components manufactured or supplied by third parties, who are not named as defendants. He contends that defendants' products were designed to be used with later-incorporated third-party asbestos-containing replacement components, which were necessary for the continued functioning of those products.
Whelan claims that defendants had a duty to provide warnings about the dangers presented by exposure not only to the asbestos-containing components integrated into their products, but also to the required asbestos-containing replacement components. Defendants counter that they had no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing replacement components manufactured or supplied by third parties and incorporated into their products after those products left their control.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of each defendant. The court found that, although defendants had a duty to warn about the dangers of their products' original asbestos-containing components, they could not be held liable for the replacement components manufactured or distributed by third parties -- even if those components were similar to the asbestos-containing components originally integrated into their products.
The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment order. The Appellate Division determined not only that defendants had a duty to warn about the dangers...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialTry vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting