McKinnon V. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Docket No.: BCD-CV-13-2) ~~ ,5 ~L rJ- C)J_M ~ 7JI5; :z_IO/ ) NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and as Personal Representative for the ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. DECISION AND ORDER (Union Carbide Corporation) ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) Defendant Union Carbide Corporation moves, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint filed by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKinnon, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Charles L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 12, 2013, in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); and wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count III). The Complaint asserts that while working in various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Campi. § II,~~ 2, 5-6, 15.) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as "the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does not identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See rJ Bernier v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 516 A.2d 534, 542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transfer to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24,2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. l2(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." Shaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." ld. Although pure motion to dismiss practice is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, "official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents referred to in the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20,' 20,843 A.2d 43. Defendant asse1ts that the date of the Decedent's death is April 13,2007. The record in this case supports that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13, 2007, from metastatic Iung cancer, the onset of which was l 0 months before his death .1 Defendant asserts, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the court applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not 1 Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company and The Fairbanks Company atlached a certified copy of Mr. McKinnon's North Carolina death certificate to their motion to dismiss. Because the death certificate confirms the date of death as asserted by Union Carbide Corporation, and because Plaintiff has not opposed or countered that date of death, the Court considers the death certificate in the present motion as an official public record. See Moody v. State Liquor Comm '11, 2004 ME 20,9 20,843 A.2d 43. 2 afterwards"), or the two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A .2d at 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant. Pursuallt to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. Date: I 1/J, }f] Entered on tho Docket: Coplossenl Yla MaH_ 3 '1 ~ S j 3 ~ STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Docket No.: BCD-CV-13-2~/ , 0r A) c-- c<{ !h - 'l 151:' ~) '3 I ) NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and as Personal Representative for the ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) ) ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) Plaintiff, (Goulds Pumps, Inc. ) ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) Defendant Goulds Pumps, Inc. moves, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. l2(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint filed by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKinnon, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Charles L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 12, 2013, in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14M .R.S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); and wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count Ill). The Complaint asserts that while working in various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Campi. § II,~~ 2, 5-6, 15.) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as "the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does not identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See J Bernier v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 516 A.2d 534, 542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transfer to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24,2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." Shaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 {Me. 1996) {quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets fo1th elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." !d. Although pure motion to dismiss practice is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, "official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents referred to in the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, ~ 20,843 A.2d 43. Defendant asserts that the date of the Decedent's death is April 13, 2007. The record in tllis case supports that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13,2007, from metastatic lung cancer, the onset of which was 10 months before his death.' Defendant asserts, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the court applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not 1 Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company and The Fairbanks Company attached a certified copy of Mr. McKinnon's North Carolina death certificate to their motion to dismiss. Because the death certificate confirms the date of death as asserted by Goulds Pumps, Inc., and because Plaintiff has not opposed or countered that date of death, the Court considers the death certificate in the present motion as an official public record. See Moody v. Stare Liquor Comm '11, 2004 ME 20, Y20,843 A.2d 43. 2 afterwards"), or the two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be conunenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A .2d at 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. Date: ( jtJ. };3 3 STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland ,. DocketNo.: BCD-CV-13-21 /_.. . r--1 (y _ /,I ,/Vl .- I./fA{ r ' 7/1 >/ 2 . 0 JJ ) NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and ) ) as Personal Representative for the ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. DECISION AND ORDER (Gardner Denver, Inc.) ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et at., ) ) Defendants ) ) Defendant Gardner Denver, Inc. moves, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint filed by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKinnon, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Charles L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 12,2013, in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); and wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count III). The Complaint asserts that while working in various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Campi. § II, ' ' 2, 5-6, 15 .) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as "the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does not identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See J Bernier v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 516 A.2d 534, 542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transfer to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24,2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." Shaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." /d. Although pure motion to dismiss practice is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, "official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents referred to in the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, ~ 20,843 A.2d 43. Defendant asset1s that the date of the Decedent's death is April 13, 2007. The record in this case supports that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13, 2007, from metastatic lung cancer, the onset of which was 10 months before his death. 1 Defendant asserts, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the court applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accmes and not 1 Defendancs Ingersoll-Rand Company and The fairbanks Company attached a certified copy of Mr. McKinnon's North Carolina death certificate to their motion to dismiss. Because the death certificate confirms the dale of death as asserted by Gardner Denver, Inc., and because Plaintiff has not opposed or countered that date of death, the Court considers che death certificale in the present motion as an official public record. See Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20,, 20,843 A.2d 43. 2 afterwards"), or the two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A .2d at 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. aine Business & Consumer Court 3 STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Do.cket No.: BCD-CV-13-21 .1 .z.. _I 7/15 tf71-" (Jc N ) NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and ) as Personal Representative for the ) ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) - UA{}'I ,. / . 1 DECISION AND ORDER (Ingersoll-Rand Company and The Fairbanks Company) Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company and The Fairbanks Company move, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint filed by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKinnon, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Charles L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 12, 2013, in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); and wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count III). The Complaint asserts that while working in various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Compl. § II,~~ 2, 5-6, 15.) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as "the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does not identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See Bemier v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 516 A.2d 534,542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transfer to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24, 2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." Shaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." !d. Although pure motion to dismiss practice is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, "official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents referred to in the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, ~ 20,843 A.2d 43. Defendants assert that the date of the Decedent's death is April 13,2007. The certified death certificate attached to Defendants' motion, which the Court considers as an official public record, see id., confirms that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13,2007, from metastatic lung cancer, the onset of which was 10 months before his death. Defendants assert, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the court applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards"), or the two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A 2 M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A .2d at 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. Date: ,;,;J ju - ....... _,~!2 e · ly Coplos sent via Mall_ 3 STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Docket No.: BCD-CV-I~-1 J \JL.N ~ UJLrf'l·ljJGtfJI} ) NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and ) as Personal Representative for the ) ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) Plaintiff, V. ) ) DECISION AND ORDER (Flowserve US Inc.) ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) Defendant Flowserve US Inc. moves, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint filed by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKim1on, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Charles L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 12, 2013, in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); and wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count Ill). The Complaint asserts that while working in various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Compl. § II, 11112, 5-6, 15.) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as "the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does not identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See I Bernier v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 516 A.2d 534,542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transfer to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24,2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." Shaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Sclt. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." ld. Although pure motion to dismiss practice is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, "official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents referred to in the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20,' 20,843 A.2d 43. Defendant asserts that the date of the Decedent's death is April 13,2007. The record in this case supports that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13,2007, from metastatic lung cancer, the onset of which was 10 months before his death. 1 Defendant asset1s, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the court applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not 1 Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company and The Fairbanks Company attached a certified copy of Mr. McKinnon's North Carolina death certificate to their motion to dismiss. Because the death certificate confirms the date of death as asserted by Flowserve US Inc., and because Plaintiff has not opposed or countered that date of death, the Court considers the death certificate in the present motion as an official public record. See Moody v. Stare Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20,' 20,843 A.2d 43. 2 afterwards"), or the two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A.2d at 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. Date: I (1:LjJ 3 3 ./ STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND,ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Docket No.: BCD-CV-13-21 /, . / m--- 7; 1:5/.L~;3 ',,.JCIV ·'- ~~AA 1 "I ) , 7 NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and ) as Personal Representative for the ) ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) DECISION AND ORDER (CBS Corporation) ) v. ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) Defendant CBS Corporation moves, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. l2(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint filed by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKinnon, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Charles L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 12, 2013, in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); and wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count III). The Complaint asserts that while working in various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Compl. § II,'' 2, 5-6, 15.) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as "the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does not identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See Bernier v. Raymark lndus.lnc., 516 A.2d 534, 542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transfer to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24,2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M .R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." Shaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." /d. Although pure motion to dismiss practice is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, "official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents referred to in the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, ~ 20,843 A.2d 43. Defendant asserts that the date of the Decedent's death is April 13,2007. The record in this case supports that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13, 2007, from metastatic lung cancer, the onset of which was 10 months before his death. 1 Defendant asserts, and the Com1 agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the court applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not 1 Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company and The Fairbanks Company attached a certified copy of Mr. McKinnon's North Carolina death certificate to their motion 10 dismiss. Because the death certificate confirms the dare of death as asserted by CBS Corporation, and because Plaintiff has no! opposed or countered that dale of death, the Court considers the death certificate in the present motion as an official public record. See Moody v. State Liquor Comm '11, 2004 ME 20,9 20,843 A.2d 43. 2 afterwards"), or the two.year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A .2d at 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. Date: 7(/J../tJ -~~~ Entjll'e(l on the Docket: '/ / Copies senl via MaR_~ 3 STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Dock.· ~t No.: BCD-CV-13 21 1 uc rJ -c LJl (}\---; 0 ) )!)/;JJI3 1 NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and ) as Personal Representative for the ) ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et al., DECISION AND ORDER (Aumra Pump Company, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Georgia Pacific, LLC, lmo Industries, Inc., and Warren Pumps, Inc. ) ) ) Defendants ) ) Defendants Aurora Pump Company, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Georgia Pacific, LLC, Imo Industries, Inc., and Warren Pumps, Inc. move, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint filed by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKinnon, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Charles L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff bas not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 12, 2013, in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); and wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count III). The Complaint asserts that while working in various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Campi. § II,'' 2, 5-6, 15.) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as "the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does . ./ not identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See Bernier v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 516 A.2d 534, 542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transfer to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24,2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." Shaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." /d. Although pure motion to dismiss practice is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, "official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents referred to in the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Moody v. Swte Liquor Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, 1f 20, 843 A .2d 43 . Defendants assert that the date of the Decedent's death is April 13, 2007. The record in this case supports that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13,2007, from metastatic lung cancer, the onset of which was 10 months before his death. 1 Defendants assert, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the com1 applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) 1 Defendants Ingersoll-Rand Company and The Fairbanks Company attached a certified copy of Mr. McKinnon's North Carolina death certificate to their motion to dismiss. Because the death certificate confirms the date of death as asserted by the Defendants, and because Plaintiff has not opposed or countered that date of deatb, the Court considers the death certificate in the present motion as an official public record. See Moody v. Slate Liquor C0111111 '11, 2004 ME 20, 9 20, 843 A.2d 43. 2 ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years afte1· the cause of action accrues and not afterwards"), or the two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A .2d at 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. '1/r$'J,_ En!emd on Ihe Docket: Copies sent via Mall_ Eleclronlcally X 3 I STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Docket No.: BCD-CV-13-2l,r j_ 0(.tV - . C,1 .·n- 7J':z5(2 or> ) NAOMI B. McKINNON, Individually and ) as Personal Representative for the ) ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER (Motion for Summary Judgment/Defendant Tri-State Packing Supply Co.) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et at., ) ) Defendants ) ) This matter is before the Court on Defendant Tri-State Packing Supply Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. In this aclion, Plaintiff contends that Charles McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos, .which ultimately. caused Ws death, -Through ·il8 motion 1 Defendnnt - -- ·-· ·asserts that Plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limilnlions, nnd that Plaintiff cannot establish the required relationship between Defendant's product and the Decedent's exposure to asbestos. Defendant riled its motion on June 26, 2013. Defendant did not rile an opposition to the motion and, therefore, has waived opposition to the motion. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); M.R. Civ. P. 7(c)(3). Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment ns n matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Lev/ue v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, ' 4, 770 A.2d 653, 655. An issue of "fact exists when there is sufficient e\'idence to require a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the tntth at trial." lnkel v. Livingston, 2005 ME 42, Y4, 869 A.2d 745,747 (quoting Lever v. Acadia HojJJ. Corp., 2004 ME35, 9 2, 845 A.2d 1178, 1179). Any ambiguities "must be resolved in favot· of the non-moving party." Beauflett v. Tile Aube Corp., 2002 ME 79, Y 2, 796 A.2d 683, 685 (citing Green v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 673 A.2d 216, 218 (Me. 1996)). To withstand a defendant's motion for summary judgment, "the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of her cause of action. lf a plaintiff does not present sufficient evidence on the essential elements ... the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment!' Blake v. State, 2005 MB32, Y4, 868 A.2d 234,237 (quotation marks omitted). The summary judgment record establishes that the Decedent was diagnosed with lung cancer in June 2006, and died on April 13, 2007. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on April 11, 2013.. Defendant asserts, and the Court agree:;, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the Court applies the general six-yeat· statute of limitalions, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ('cAll civil actions shall be statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death StaMe, see 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) C'An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). The Court, therefore, grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and enters judgment in favor of Defendant Tri-State Packing Supply Co. and against Plaintiff. 1 Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(n), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. Date: 1 {J-f /t3 siness & Consumer Court 1 Because the Court has concluded that the record estnblishos that lhc Plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limHallons, the Court does uot address Plaintiff's other Argwncnts in support of ils request for smumary judgmcm. 2 Copies sent vta 1 1- ~ I~ Mall_~ ,.... ..... 1Jod<et STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Docke~ No.: BCD-CV-13~2'.// ,"JcN -l~AIYI) ~ t':J :tot:; I NAOMI B. McKINNON 1 lndivldually and ) as Personal Representative for the ) ESTATE OF CHARLES L. McKINNON I ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. DECISION AND ORDER (General Electric Company) ) ) AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) Defendant General Electric Company moves, pursuant to M.R. Clv. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the three-count complaint flied by Plaintiff Naomi B. McKinnon, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Chades L. McKinnon, on ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff ltas not filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 121 2013,in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging three causes of action against all named Defendants: negligence (Count I); strict products liability pursuant to 14 M.R,S. § 221 (2012) (Count II); Rl)d wrongful death pursuant to Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, 18-A M.R,S. § 2-804 (2012), (Count III). The Complaint assea·ts that while working Jn various positions for various employers from the late 1940s until 1993, Charles L. McKinnon (the Decedent) was exposed to asbestos and contracted lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. (Compl. § II I~~ 2, 5-6, 15 .) Although the Complaint identifies Mr. McKinnon as 11 the Decedent" and is brought in the name of his estate, the Complaint does not Identify the date of his death or the discovery date of any asbestos-related diseases. See .I Bemler v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 516 A.2d 534, 542-43 (Me. 1986) (declaring that the actionable event in asbestos exposure cases is the date of the manifestation of asbestos related disease, not the date of exposure). The matter was approved for transkr to the Business and Consumer Court on May 24,2013. A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Clv. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the lagal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted!' Sllaw v. S. Aroostook Comm. Scli. Dist .. ¢ 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court examines "the complaint In the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether It sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entltle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory.n /d. Although pure motion to dismiss practice Is generally limited to a consideration of the pleadings, nofflcial public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiff ¢s claim, and documents referred to ln the complaint may be properly considered on a motion to dismiss ... when the atathentlcity of such documents Is not challenged!' Moody v. State Liquor Comm'n, 2004 MB 20,!20,843 A,2d43. Defendant asserts that the date of the Decedent's death is Aprll 13. 2007. The recot'd in this case supports that Mr. McKinnon died on April 13,2007, from metastatic lung cancer, the onset of which was 10 months before Ills deRth. 1 Defendant asserts, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mt·. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whethet· the court applies the general slx-yeat· statute of ihnitatlons, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) e'AII civil actlons shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action acca11es and not 1 Defendants Jngcrsoii-Rnnd Company and The Falrbttnks Company nllached a cerllfled copy of Mr. McKinnon's North Cftrollna death cerllflcate to tholr motion to dismiss. Becn1tse the death certlncnte conOrms tho dnlo of death as asserted by General Blectrlc Company, and because Plaintiff has not opposed or countered that date or death, tho Court considers the death eorllflcatc ln the present motion as an official public record. See Mood-, v. State Liquor Conrm'11, 2004MB 20,9 20,843 A.2d 43. . 2 afterwa1·ds"), Ol' tho two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18·A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death."). Accordingly, because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to relief, see Shaw, 683 A.2d nt 503, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant. Pursuant to M.R. Clv. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order Into the docket by refe1·ence. .. ,.__ l:nleroo on tho Ooclcet· Copies sent via Mall~ 3 U·l3 E @Cally~ BCD-CV-13-21 Naomi McKinnon v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp et al Attorney List Counsel for Plaintiff: Naomi McKinnon (Estate of Charles) Thomas Scott (local counsel)/ Erik Karst (out of state counsel) Basham & Scott, LLC, 4 Main St. Brunswick ME 04011 Air & Liquid Systems David McConnell. Esq. Perkins Thompson One Canal Plaza Ste 900 Portland ME 04112-0426 Armstrong International Francis Lynch, Esq. Cetrulo & Capone Two Seaport Lane Boston MA 02110 Aurora Pump, Foster Wheeler, Gardner Denver, Flowserve Corp., IMO Industries, Warren Pumps & Georgia Pacific Steven Wright, Esq. Wright & Associates 615 Congress St, Ste 15 Portland ME 041 01 CBS Corporation Elizabeth Stouder, Esq. Richardson, Whitman Large & Badger 465 Congress St Portland ME 04112-9545 Flowserve Corp. B. Forsberg, Esq. Bernstein Shur 100 Middle St Portland ME 041 04 General Electric Kara Lynch, Esq. McCarter & English Cityplace I 185 Asylum St., 36ht Floor Hartford CT 061 03 Goulds Pumps Jeffrey Edwards, Esq. Preti Flaherty One City Center Portland ME 04112 Honeywell Int'l Stephen Whiting, Esq. The Whiting Law Firm 75 Pearl St, Ste 207 Portland ME 041 01 Ingersoll Rand & The Fairbanks Company Heidi Bean, Esq. Verrill Dana One Portland Square Portland ME 04112 Tri State Packing Christine Kennedy-Jensen, Esq. 103 Exchange St Portland ME 04112 Union Carbide Katherine Perry, Esq. Adler Pollock & Sheehan 175 Federal St, 1oth Floor Boston MA 02110

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.