LINDEMANN v. FOSTER-WHEELER CORPORATION et al, No. 2:2007cv63080 - Document 63 (E.D. Pa. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 10/18/10. 10/19/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(fdc)

Download PDF
LINDEMANN v. FOSTER-WHEELER CORPORATION et al Doc. 63 IN THE UNITE:D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI!3'l'iUCl' OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: ASB:SSl'OS PECJ:JCT:3 L:::A3ILI:;Y LIT 1 Vi f f":0D DOCKF,'.;:' 875 t1JI CHAt;L LIN DEMANN, Plaintiff Case v. 07­63080 Transfer:::ed fro;n the Western of Per.nsylvania Defendants F:f)GARDQ C. J. Before the CQl,\L'l is De ,stm..'Earv ,Judgment. 18, ndant Ohio F.r:li scm's Motion for Ohio Edison fer ';udgment on the c;rQu::d Lha:= t:­:ey were ;­:Dt. the possessor cf the land in ques::.ion, and th0refoY8 cannot be held liable for injuI:ies allefj0dly caused by the prosence: of asbestos on the land. T. RACKGRODND Plaintiff, Michael ,j. Lindemdnn, as executor of the of Gecrge ',i. Lindemann, brought thi.'3 0.StCltC for.­ asbestos exposure me'3othelioma on February '1, 2005 1 a::d passed 3\vay on Junr;; 28, 2005. (Def.'s Mot:. Summ. J., doc. no. 40, at 2., asser;:::: that )efendi:lnt Oh p tiff Edison is :iable as owner c[ the " " Dockets.Justia.com Bruce Mansfield Power Plant Shippi::gport l Mansfield"), locntnd where decedent wc)rked as a unicn ldbcrer [::­om :974 1988, C:d. Fit 1.) was by roster Wheele,,::: as an independent contractor at Bruce Mansfield. Fos::.er hdd a co:­:t::act with the fo:: the maintenance consis­<;:.ed prima.:­lly of of the "lTnit ODt";" boiler, nnd the "'cb .' C18i'ln up, after repairs to the boiler were Clmducled. of David t'l:eed at 16:10, :zd"C:: Dap.") L " Plaintiff alleqes th:;lL in the clean­up procC::55, Mr. Llndereann W2.S exposed t.o asbestos dus:.. dnd fiber:s. brought a clain Ohio £o.i20n as t""'.E; Pl ainti.tf prerr.ises owner 0: Bruce Marlsfield. T T. LEGAL STANDARD' When evaluating a motion for summary juciqment, P€'deral Rule (;f Civil ?:::ocedurc 56 p.!:"ovides that lhe Cc­.:.rt TIust gril:'.t. J;.:dg:ncnt in favcr of the moving party when "the pleadings, the discovery and there 103 no mdterials on f1 Ie, and any ;:!±:'fid.:tvi':s show that iSS'JB AS ,.0 any n<1tcrial fact . . . Fed. In trict lit.igatioc, "or: matters of procedure, the ::.::a:­;sfe.!'ee ''';;'::\.1,,:'. tr.\lst apply federa 1 1 (1\" as i:::­erprc::cd by the cour­:: of ;..'here "t;;e t.T'i'msferee cour::. s.i:.,s," nsbestos Prods. Llabl. LJ..tiq. (No. VI), 673 F. ':''.Jpp. 2d 362 (1:.:.D. Pa. 2009), On subsLantive matters, including choice of law nIles, the sLate law of the t".T'ansferor district applies. :Sevy & Scr­:s 'n::':. v. Ro:nuD.!/.. 988 r.2j 3::'1, 313 (2d Cir. 1993). As is to Jaw in this case, th13 Conrt. '.... i1.1 apply Pe::nsylvania law. 2 A fact '::'5 "nateria':' u R. Civ. P. 56(c) (?}. if existeY'.ce or non­existence wouJd atfect the outcome of the s law, 248 (1986). Ar:.oe:::-.$.QJ} t under v. Lio.17U:ty z.ocbv. lnc.! 477 :;,S, 242, An issue ot fact is "qenui::e'" Lhere is sufficient cvidcncB from which a reds­onable jury could tind in :avo::: fact. 0: the nQr::­r:18vi::g I..!;;L.. at 248 49. draw a;.} £1 V. par:y re "':".:­­.e exist:cncc of tha­: "In Gonsidering the evidence, the courL inferences against the moving party." S:!;?TJit, 479 F.3d 237. 238 (30 Cit'. 2007). "All hough the initial burden is on the summary "judgment 1':10VB.i;:, to show tJ"le absence of a nuine of fact, 'the bun­:l.en on the moving party may be discha:r;gt:d by shOvIi ng­t_hat is, po::"P.­:ing out to the distr L C01Jrt that there is un absence of evidence to suppr.);:·L Lhe nonmov: ng pCirty' S cilse' when the nonmoving party bean::: the ultimate hurden of proof. It y, ?UD. Serv.m.Elec, & Gas CQnoshenti 364 F,3d 135, 14:) (3d Cir. 2:::01,.} (quoting SingJBtnrv v. Pil. Dcp't of Corr., 266 F.3d 186, 192 n.2 (3d Cir. 2UCl)). Or,cc ':.;'­,8: IT.ov:.ng rty has UII,IS discharged its hurden, the nonmoving party ":na'! not rely· merely on all eqations or denials in its own pl.eading; L6theT r its response D.ust­­by or as OtherWlse p=ovided [Rule 56,­­8e: specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (e) (2). 3 TTT. DISCUSSION lI.. Jefc:"dan::' s A.:­g,"":nent f Defendant argues that it is not a proper party to this action, as is ct nere out­ai­possession owner of the 3C0ce Han:;:;field Power Piant and, under pennsylvania L:rw, mere Qut·­of- possessinG owners '::::'­0 not liable for ir,)U.LieS (De£"s MoL Sumrn. J. at 6.; properly. sust.ained on the Alte.:::na.::ively, even if iL can :-w shown that Detendant had possession dnd control ­of Plaintiff has failed prove that :Je:enda::t: breached its duty to bu;:,;inf;ss invit.ees under Pennsylvania law, :l;i. at g.) AdciitionaL.y, assel:ts that :::a':'ntif£ has produced lnsuffi cient_ evidence t.o .show that Defendant possessed C3re for mere 1 anclOWn2Ys. (Td. at 18.) Furthermore, Detendar:t. d::..sputes that any asueslos was present a-::: Bruce Mansfield. Defendant also aSSerls Plaintiff has produced insufflclent evidenC0 of decedent's t,(le p::"a:­"t. decedent's e:T,ployusn::: ot hislory is limitp.d to a single deposition that places the decedenl at the R, for 2­3 1975. Plaintiff's Itrg:.:ment Plaintiff argues that Ohio Edl.son is estopped from arguir:g that ic: is the par:.y Lo s actio;;, 4 2.8 th:s £lrgumcnt was no!.. raised in the anSW0r tc:; Plaintiff';; joe. ;.0. 4­_ at 1.) furthcrnore, Rt:;;sp., that there evidence of acbcstos at Bruce Mansfield, by way of j:3 of Bruce tzansfielc employees stati::g t:::;oL aSDestos was present at. 8.) Plal.:::..iff asserts" hnt Mr. Freed's testim':)[lY regarding decedent' 5 employment at Bruce Mansfield is sufficient :'0 establish de:::edent' work :'":istOTY at p.:.'­1nt. liabj 1: ::y, P:;'a=­­­ntiff asserts that On the issue ()[ f__ Ohio Edison was in posse3sion 2nd control Bruce Mansfield, dS a n:ajDTity owner. and breached i:.s duty of care to decedent. a inv:':.ee. ever:. De­fe­n(1a':"'.T: was .::tn out­af­possession owner, the "special knowledge" and "peculiar cxccp­::i:J::s apply beca:.:se Defe:1danl was in a 3upe.::::-j or positlOr. "':0 know of the peculiar L­isks rent 'd! Cisbpst.os. (.lJ;;L at 11.) AnaJ'1'8i3 1. Decedent's l!.:mploymenl Slalus and Presencp of Asbestos at Bruce When vlew':ng the facts i:: lhe ­=­igh:: IT.ost faV8"'­­Flblp Plaint iff r as the t;; ing party, Pl a i nT. iff has produced sufficie:­:t evidence to show that­ there was asbestos pycsent at P:a employees of producea affidavits of t·1nnsfield during the relevant time period thaL attest to the presence of asbestos at the plant. Sx:­:ibits I/ J, K, L. testified that flC 19"75. suf ThJ.8 co­workcy David F::eed worked at cicnt, at this stage, in establish plaint] ff was err,pl::­yed at the Bruce ::ian!:lfleld plant, and that llsbestos was present at the wud:site. Then::fo::e, the analy:;;­.i.s will focus on the CAP'C.rnl iss'­le of whet:,er Ohi;) Eciis8:.1 can be held liable as t­",e preniscs owner of r­JCiI:sfield. 2. Ohio Edison is Estq:;ped from Arg'J.im,l :. the Wrong Party to Sui'C. PiB;ntiff is correct in asserting that Ohio Edls(')tL is estopped fron argl:ing that :..t is the wrong party to the snit.. Defendant never answered Plaintiff's campI a i nt:, because Dcfendar.t was not required -'::0 do so uncie.r: ?en!lsylvania law. Penr:sylva::.ia Rule of Civil ProceUULe l041.1 (e) provides that, in an asbestos action, 'the fillng of dn appearance by a defendant constilutes (1) a denlal of all Aver;nents of rae': in the ccmplalnL alleq2tion 0: all affirr:tative defenses and (3) cl (2} an claire for im.hmn.i.f lcatior: and Gontributio:;. fro:n any :Jther party. Ec­>wever, this is in di.!:€'ct 8 (1) ccmflict wiLh Fed. R. eiv. P. (B) r which requires defe:idar.ts to "adm17'. or ceny the a:"legotions asserted against it by nn cpposing pa!",:y.u (0) (6) or. Lhe rule oakes clear that iJ.:1 Sec,:ion allegation is admi:..led if 'Ill: a respon,slvB pleadL:­­,g is rcqu:'red and t:­:e allegalion is not 6 of'mied." Pursuant to the ic..r1-€'; doctri.ne, when a Federal R'cl.Le of Civi: I?roceo.ure d":'rec::l V confL.. cLs with d state procedura­'.­ ru ..... c, federal courts must apply the federal rule. IIUffianl .l . Jg;?c Inc., 5".. 8 u.s. 4:5 Erie R.E. v. Trelefoyp.­, once the case was removed, Defendanl had an ohi igi"1tton to file an answer. See Fed. R. \/, P. B{b). R8cause Cefe""'.. di'int. did not.. iile an ans'wer, Defendant ad:nlt,::ed Plairt" ff';:; nllegation that Ohio Edison is an owner of Bruce Manstield.! Additionally, staleu in ::"':=..s r:.otlon for surnrr.ary judgment a '­nti ff'.9 al :eged tha:.: at the Lime of Ohio Edison (:974­1988} I 8 44.97% majority owner of' the plant. Ther.efore, Old::) Eulson is a correr::::ly named pOTty, and the analysis must fCCllR on whe-::'::er they wore a "possessor'" for purpuses ;)f prem" liability during the time of exposure, 3. UndeL" There it; Ir:.s'­'.fflcie!!.L: Evtdence t_o Shm·} Defendant was d PUs.';lossor of rhe T,Ana During t:hc Time Fr"ame in Question Law, mere ti tlD ::0 3ufficier:t ba31 S fer liahi1i.ty. ,J. prcIr.. iscs is not a a party 1:0 the duties t;)f pren:ises Instead. there must be possession, IDeanlng T::e a2.1ega.tiQIl is, O'irf!l::::d and/or by defendanr: Ohio Rdison CompDny {the defendant') w",.::; Uf\;;;ld[e due to a latent_ nd7flY'\:l(")l1S condition, transportable cesplLdble asbestos f­j which detendant knew or hdve know!":. E'xist.ed ;::J':; the p1:"er.lises," (,Plofs Comp':. 'f. 27.) 2 7 "occupallon of land wit.h intent to control it." See Restatement, (Second) of Torts, § 8E (qco':.ed in Rudy y. A­Best 270 A.2d 330, 333 (Fa, Super. 2005)}. stAge, C.Q..u At the summary judgment burden is 0::: plaintiff to produ(;.e evidence of possession.. 11 genuine issue of material fact as to possession, judgment should be enlf;:!.n:d for Defendant. See Fea.. R. Civ. P. S6il); 8iO A.3d at. '334 n.4 (hold­=­ng that, under :aw, "failure to present compcten;: evidence of [possession1 entitles defe;":dant ­:'0 Tn ­:­.he $um:nary j:.:dg:1:H:,"nt. ") . casc Plaintiff relies or:. only ::.hre­e­ T of 0vidence to classify Defendant as a possessor. First, they filed in U •. s... v. u:­­:io Edison Co.•. a::d point :'0 a consent ?ennsvlvania ?Qwer Co" 2:99­CV­1181, (s.n. Ohio updales in equipment necessary to reduce environmental impact that Ohio Edi.'3cn for 0_ wt1Jfl power plants, ir,cJuding Bruce Hansfield. ctua:ing at­ nurre­rous (PL's ?'.} Soc:on',j, Plaintiffs point to a document from John Cooper Asso:::i<2.tes, P.A' developnent of .:if! 1996." f tha:: "Chio lY',odificdtion for Uni tB 1 ibi t (ld.; Pl,/s that Oh·::'o & G at 3.) & 2 Fin;;lly, Diwid Freed son rr::'.­;J:­­_t h2ve bee::: direct:<.ng the ..fOrk to be performed for Foste!.' Nheeler during the t_ime frClme in question. Octobe!' (Freed uap. at 26:22.) 8 b:ven when viewed in a light most favorable to Plaint1 rec:::rd i:::: lr:s,­­fficien7_ :­.0 a gen'­:i::e , th;:: of material "'act as to whether Ohio Edison owned and operated Bruce Mansfield clueinG th':3 t.J.JIl0 fra!Tle .in q1.;estion (1974­1988). consent Fi v-st " t­''''e is from an .t:nvirorunentdl Pr:otectioTI Agency action COr:1.'11cnced 2.bcut five ye2Ts age, and SClJRBCS nu::ncrous power pL'l_TI':, lOCi:lt trom John Cooper & Assoc';'ates in '1996 does not indicate anything aboi..1': De':endant's control of Br'vlcc: r1ansfie..<.­d ':y.::n:t 197'1­1983. Finally. Defendfint usserts that Pennsylvania Power Company ("Penn PC:W0'!"U) Has l:'kcly the 0: Bruce )1ansfielc til:r:.­ng (Def,'s Br. at 7,) the relevant time frame. Indeed, Mr. Freed's 5"itated that "he was ;;oL sure u wh€thor: ?enn Pewer or Ohio 2rilson operated the plant when he worked there. at 32: 8.) Hc stated "the;;t wha:::ever car:t€ fron, el Lo Foster Wheeler." (Freed Del'_ the orde'!"$, the jobs and Ol­d 0 Edison c'" whoever was the:::e down (Freed Del'. at 26:22) (emphasis added), Qr ::::­:'<3 issue 0= posseSSlon, Plai::t.:..':f has fai" ed to rr).j se a genuine issue of material fact as to Ohio Edlson's control ot 3ru:::e Hn:­:sfield genuine issue of wi 1974­':988. The recor:d does :­::ot Sf; a fact as to wtleLher Defendant the intenL tc conty­o':"" Bruce M20sflcld dt;t'ing the relevant tiwe fraree. As there is jn$ufficient evidCiJ.Cc to raise a qemune issue 9 of tact under Fed. J.{. Civ, P. 56 as t.o whether' Edison was in possession of SLuce t4ansfield duri ng the relevant time frame, the knowl edge" and "pec'..11 i,,::r.' :::isk" exc!:;;:pllcns to a possessor's IV. need not be addressed. For t,he foregoing reasons, Defendant Ohio Edison's Motion f(jY Sunrcary Cudgrr,cnt is granted. An approy.;:'ia':e 0 10 r follows.

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.