Rodrigue v. Anco Insulation, Inc. et al, No. 2:2018cv04207 - Document 221 (E.D. La. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 115 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 167 Motion for Summary Judgment as more fully set forth in document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/18/2019. (mm)

Download PDF

Rodrigue v. Anco Insulation, Inc. et al Doc. 221 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA THERESA RODRIGUE VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-420 7 ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is (1) a joint m otion for summ ary judgment filed by defendants J ohn Crane Inc.; Anco Insulatations, Inc.; Zurich Am erican Insurance Com pany; Warren Pum ps, LLC; The McCarty Corporation; Atwood and Morrill; Viking Pum p, Inc.; GREFCO, Inc.; FMC Corporation; Crosby Valve LLC; Ingersoll-Rand Com pany; Goulds Pum ps LLC; General Electric Com pany; Foster Wheeler, LLC; CBS Corporation; International Paper Com pany; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; CertainTeed Corporation; Crane Co.; and Am chem Products, Inc. (collectively “the J oint Defendants”); 1 and (2) a m otion for sum mary judgm ent filed by defendant Burm aster Land & Development Company, LLC. 2 1 2 R. Doc. 115. R. Doc. 167. Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROU N D This case arises from Theresa Rodrigue’s alleged exposure to asbestos. 3 Plaintiffs contend that Rodrigue’s brother worked for Avondale Shipyards as a rigger. 4 According to plaintiffs, Rodrigue’s brother’s position exposed him to a “trem endous am ount of asbestos and asbestos-containing products.”5 Those products allegedly caused asbestos dust to becom e attached to Rodrigue’s brother’s clothes. 6 Plaintiffs argue that Rodrigue was exposed to asbestos dust when she washed her brother’s clothes each evening. 7 Rodrigue was diagnosed with m alignant m esotheliom a on August 24, 20 17. 8 On December 13, 20 17, Rodrigue filed this action in state court against 32 different defendants. 9 Rodrigue alleges that each defendant m anufactured, designed, packaged, furnished, stored, handled, transported, installed, distributed, sold, or otherwise supplied asbestos-containing products that contributed to her asbestos exposure and m esothelioma diagnosis. 10 Rodrigue accordingly asserted state law products liability claim s 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 See R. Doc. 1-2 at 5 ¶ 3. R. Doc. 156 at 2. Id. at 4-5. Id. at 5. Id. See R. Doc. 156-1. R. Doc. 1-2. Id. 2 against the defendants. 11 Defendant Huntington Ingalls filed a crossclaim against all other defendants. Plaintiffs have since voluntarily dism issed Huntington Ingalls from this case. 12 Rodrigue died on October 18, 20 18. 13 Her surviving children, Marty Lam ar, Fina Reiss, Paris Gautreaux, and Cinna J . Gautreaux, were substituted in as plaintiffs in this action. 14 On December 7, 20 18, the J oint Defendants m oved for sum m ary judgm ent on plaintiffs’ claim s and Huntington Ingalls’ crossclaim . 15 The J oint Defendants contend that plaintiffs cannot establish that any of Rodrigue’s fam ily m embers ever worked around products they sold that contained asbestos, and that plaintiffs thus cannot establish at trial that their products caused Rodrigue’s illness. 16 On February 5, 20 19, plaintiffs responded to the J oint Defendants’ motion. 17 Plaintiffs opposed sum m ary judgm ent for only three of the J oint Defendants: General Electric Com pany; 11 Id. at 5-16. R. Doc. 137. 13 R. Doc. 127. 14 R. Doc. 129. 15 R. Doc. 115. On December 10 , 20 19, defendant International Paper Com pany, which is a party to the J oint Defendants’ m otion, also filed a separate m otion for sum m ary judgment. R. Doc. 117. 16 R. Doc. 115-1 at 2. 17 R. Doc. 156. 12 3 Foster Wheeler, LLC; and CBS Corporation. 18 But on April 11, 20 19, plaintiffs, General Electric Com pany, Foster Wheeler, LLC, and CBS Corporation filed into the record a joint notice of a settlem ent agreement. 19 In addition, since the J oint Defendants filed their m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, plaintiffs have either m oved to dism iss or settled with the following defendants which were party to the J oint Defendants’ m otion: FMC Corporation, 20 Ingersoll-Rand Com pany, 21 McCarty Corporation, 22 Owens-Illinois, Inc., 23 International Paper Company, 24 and Am chem Products, Inc. 25 To sum m arize, the following eleven parties to the J oint Defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent rem ain in this action: J ohn Crane Inc.; Anco Insulatations, Inc.; Zurich Am erican Insurance Com pany; Warren Pum ps, LLC; Atwood and Morrill; Viking Pum p, Inc.; GREFCO, Inc.; Crosby Valve LLC; Goulds Pum ps LLC; CertainTeed Corporation; and Crane Co. Plaintiffs do not oppose sum mary judgm ent for any of these parties. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Id. R. Doc. 218. R. Doc. 134; R. Doc. 141. R. Doc. 136; R. Doc. 142. R. Doc. 160 . R. Doc. 161. Id. R. Doc. 162. 4 On February 13, 20 19, after the parties had fully briefed the J oint Defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, defendant Burm aster Land & Development Com pany, LLC filed a separate m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 26 Burm aster is not party to the m otion filed by the J oint Defendants. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to Burm aster’s m otion. II. D ISCU SSION Neither plaintiffs nor Huntington Ingalls opposes sum mary judgment for any of the m ovants who rem ain in this action. Each m ovant who rem ains has pointed out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of plaintiffs’ or Huntington Ingalls’ claim s. Because neither plaintiffs nor Huntington Ingalls have subm itted evidence showing that a genuine factual dispute exists, sum m ary judgm ent for the remaining J oint Defendants and Burm aster is proper. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986). III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the J oint Defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent on Huntington Ingalls’ crossclaim is GRANTED. That crossclaim 26 R. Doc. 167. 5 against the J oint Defendants is DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. In addition, the following parties to the J oint Defendants’ motion are entitled to sum m ary judgm ent on plaintiffs’ claim s: J ohn Crane Inc.; Anco Insulatations, Inc.; Zurich Am erican Insurance Company; Warren Pum ps, LLC; Atwood and Morrill; Viking Pum p, Inc.; GREFCO, Inc.; Crosby Valve LLC; Goulds Pum ps LLC; CertainTeed Corporation; and Crane Co. Plaintiffs’ claim s against these defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. Burm aster’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is also GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ and Huntington Ingalls’ claims against Burm aster are DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _18th _ _ _ _ day of April, 20 19. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.