Yeanna Woo v. General Electric Company ( 2017 )

TILED
ALS DIV
cOURT OF AFFE
VASHISG1011
SIATE OF
2[111 -3 111.1 B:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
YEANNA WOO, Personal ) No. 74458-5-1
Representative for the Estate of YUEN )
WING WOO and his Surviving Spouse, ) DIVISION ONE
JEAN 01W00, )
Appellants, )
)
v. )
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )
)
Respondent, )
)
ASBESTOS CORP. LTD., CBS ) PUBLISHED OPINION
CORPORATION (fka Viacom, Inc., )
successor by merger with CBS )
Corporation fka Westinghouse Electric )
Corporation), FOSTER WHEELER )
ENERGY CORPORATION, FRASER'S )
BOILER SERVICE, INC., LOCKHEED )
SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, )
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE )
COMPANY,SABERHAGEN )
HOLDINGS, INC., TODD SHIPYARDS )
CORP., )
)
Defendants. ) FILED: April 3, 2017
SCHINDLER, J. — As a general rule under common law and strict liability
principles, a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of the hazards of a product the
manufacturer did not place in the stream of commerce. But there are exceptions to this
general rule. Yuen Wing Woo worked as an engineer for the Navy and on military
No. 74458-5-1/2
transportation ships in the 1940s and 1950s. Woo died of mesothelioma. The personal
representative of the Estate of Yuen Wing Woo, Yeanna Woo, and Woo's surviving
spouse, Jean Oi Woo (collectively, the Estate), filed a wrongful death and personal
injury lawsuit against General Electric Company(GE). GE designed, manufactured,
and supplied steam turbines used on Navy and military transportation ships in the
1940s and 1950s. Reasonable inferences from the evidence show that in the 1940s
and 1950s, GE steam turbines required the use of thermal heat insulation, gaskets, and
packing to properly function and GE knew only asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets,
and packing were available. The evidence also creates the reasonable inference that
Woo was exposed not only to asbestos-containing insulation and packing but also
gaskets originally supplied by GE. We reverse summary judgment dismissal and
remand for trial.
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuit
Yuen Wing Woo served in the United States Navy from 1943 to 1946. During
World War II, Woo worked as a machinist aboard the destroyer USS George K.
MacKenzie. After the war, Woo joined the Military Sea Transportation Service (MSTS).
Woo worked as a third assistant engineer aboard the cargo ship USNS PVT John R.
Towle from December 1949 to February 1950. Woo worked aboard the USNS James
O'Hara from March 1951 until January 1952.
General Electric Company(GE)designed, manufactured, and supplied the steam
turbines in the 1940s and 1950s that were used aboard the USS MacKenzie, USNS
Towle, and USNS O'Hara.
2
No. 74458-5-1/3
Woo died of mesothelioma in 2009. The personal representative of the Estate of
Yuen Wing Woo, Yeanna Woo, and Woo's surviving spouse, Jean Oi Woo (collectively,
the Estate), filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against GE.
GE filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal. GE argued there was no
evidence GE supplied or installed asbestos-containing products used in conjunction
with the steam turbines on the USS MacKenzie, USNS Towle, or USNS O'Hara. GE
asserted that as a matter of law under Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wash. 2d 341, 197
P.3d 127(2008), and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wash. 2d 373, 198 P.3d 493
(2008), GE did not have a duty to warn about the hazards of asbestos-containing
products it did not manufacture, sell, or supply. GE also argued the Estate could not
prove causation.
GE submitted excerpts from the deposition of GE corporate representative David
Skinner. Skinner worked as an engineer for GE from 1967 to 2005. Skinner testified he
reviewed the technical drawings for the steam turbines that GE manufactured. Based
on his review, Skinner said there was "no indication at all that General Electric was
involved in either the procurement, the design, or the installation of thermal insulation"
and "no thermal insulation [was] provided" by GE. Skinner said that either the contract
with the shipowner or shipyard and "the standard practice" determined the scope of
work performed by the GE field engineers. Skinner testified the "standard practice, as
specified in numerous contracts as well as the specifications, is that the insulation is the
shipyard's responsibility." Skinner said the "standard practice on all marine applications
is that the shipyard would provide all the insulation for the steam turbine and for the
remainder of the ship." Skinner also testified that the "predominance of the work" on
3
No. 74458-5-1/4
steam turbines did not require "any opening of the steam turbine, removal of any
insulation, or anything to that effect."
In opposition, the Estate argued that under the exception in Macias v.
Saberhaaen Holdings, Inc., 175 Wash. 2d 402, 282 P.3d 1069(2012), GE had a duty to
warn about the hazards of the asbestos-containing products that had to be used with
the steam turbines. The Estate presented evidence that GE knew only asbestos-
containing thermal insulation, gaskets, and packing were available in the 1940s and
1950s and were necessary for the proper functioning of the steam turbines. The Estate
also presented evidence that Woo was exposed to the asbestos-containing products.
The Estate submitted a number of documents including Navy service and MSTS
employment records, a "Technical Information Letter" and copyright issued by GE in
1989, excerpts from the deposition of Retired Reserve Navy Captain Francis Burger,
the declaration and deposition testimony of former marine engineer Everett Cooper, the
declaration of industrial hygiene expert Dr. Nicholas Heyer, and the declaration of
medical expert Dr. Samuel Hammar.
The evidence showed that before 1975, ships "had extensive asbestos insulating
material aboard," and in 1989, GE issued a Technical Information Letter (TIL) on
"Asbestos Containing Materials in Turbine-Generators Applicable to: Steam Turbine-
Generators." The portion of the TIL distributed to GE employees states the purpose of
the letter is "to advise customers of the potential locations of asbestos-containing
materials" and provide information on "non-asbestos substitutes which are now
commercially available." The TIL provides information to "assist in answering customer
questions regarding the elimination of the asbestos containing material." The TIL states
4
No. 74458-5-1/5
that heat retention insulation for new GE steam turbines is "usually purchased and field
installed by GE to functional factory specifications."
Heat retention materials for new installations are usually purchased and
field installed by GE to functional factory specifications. In some cases
this material has been in the customer's scope of supply.
In the portion distributed to customers, the TIL describes the purpose of the letter
as follows:
The purpose of this Technical Information Letter is to inform our
customers of the possible locations of asbestos containing materials in
General Electric steam turbine-generators manufactured for Utility and
Industrial applications.
The TIL describes the necessity of using asbestos-containing heat retention
products on steam turbines:
The properties of asbestos make it desirable for applications such as in
heat retention and sound deadening materials, electrical insulation
systems, gasketing, stem packings, and shaft seals. Non-asbestos
containing materials with equivalent needed properties have not always
been available for many applications. As health hazards of asbestos were
recognized, new non-asbestos materials for all turbine generator
applications became available that enabled the current turbine-generator
shipments to be asbestos free.
The TIL states the "bulk of asbestos" used with the turbines was heat retention
insulation that "has been typically purchased to functional specifications from insulation
vendors and field installed." However, the TIL states that after "non-asbestos equivalent
materials became available" in the early 1970s,"GE specifications were subsequently
revised to prohibit the use of asbestos." The TIL notifies customers that "[s]everal types
of asbestos free material are now commercially available for this application."
5
No. 74458-5-1/6
The TIL also describes the necessity of gaskets and states that before the 1970s,
only asbestos-containing gaskets were available.
Flat sheet gaskets are used extensively for low pressure and low
temperature sealing applications. As with the spiral wounds, asbestos
containing materials have been used exclusively and the industry has only
recently developed suitable non-asbestos replacements. Because of the
wide range of environments... where flat gaskets are used, several
different asbestos containing materials have been utilized. Similarly, the
industry has developed a variety of non-asbestos replacements but none
are exact substitutes. Typically the non-asbestos products cannot be
directly substituted for the asbestos gaskets.
In a deposition excerpt, Captain Burger testified that the Navy followed the
directions of the equipment manufacturer for insulation of steam turbines.
Q. Are you saying that your experience is that when United
States Navy ships are being built for the Navy, that the equipment
suppliers actually go aboard those ships and supervise the Navy as to
what they do with respect to building those ships?
A. When it comes to their equipment, yes.
Q. ... And is it your opinion that the equipment suppliers direct
the Navy with respect to proper procedures on how to insulate that
equipment?
A. They would have insured that their direction and their
documentation, their insulation drawings were followed, yes.
Cooper worked as a third assistant engineer on MSTS ships "built in the era
during and shortly after World War II." Cooper testified that "much of Mr. Woo's work in
the Navy and particularly at MSTS, would have been in the various ships' engine
spaces where the turbines were located."
Cooper testified the steam turbines used aboard Navy and MSTS ships in the
1940s and 1950s "require[d]" exterior insulation in order to "function properly." Cooper
6
No. 74458-5-1/7
testified the turbines required "asbestos packing on the nozzle valves" and "asbestos
gaskets to seal piping flange connections."
Most large steam vessels constructed after the 1920s are powered by
steam turbines. Turbo generators are used aboard Navy and many MSTS
ships built in the 1940s and 1950s for providing electricity. These turbines
require insulation on the exterior in order to function properly. Additionally,
steam turbines require asbestos gaskets to seal piping flange connections
and asbestos packing on the nozzle valves. The most common brands of
marine turbines are Westinghouse, General Electric, Elliot and DeLaval.
Cooper testified that because the work of an engineer on the MSTS ships was in
"close proximity" to the turbines and the insulation would deteriorate, it was "not
uncommon to see dust or other debris from the insulation."
During the 1950s ... , the insulation on the outside of the turbines and
connecting pipes typically contained asbestos. The turbines were in use
much, if not all of the time, that the ships were moving. It was typical in
my experience for the insulation on and around the turbines to deteriorate
over time. That deterioration was compounded by the ship[']s movement
in heavy weather or when the vessel was vibrating while the vessel was
moving. Furthermore, it was common for the insulation over time to be
damaged by accidental contact or as a result of leaks. Much of my work
and the work of other people in the engineering spaces aboard the MSTS
ships was with or in close proximity to the various turbines. It was not
uncommon to see dust or other debris from the insulation on and around
the turbines while working in the engineering spaces.
Contrary to the testimony of Skinner, Cooper testified that regular maintenance of
the interior blades of the steam turbines "cannot be performed without dismantling the
turbine which in turn requires removal of the asbestos insulation covering the top half of
the turbine." Cooper testified maintenance on the turbines occurred every four to five
years and regular maintenance required replacement of insulation, gaskets, and
7
No. 74458-5-1/8
packing. Cooper said,"There is no way that asbestos insulation, gaskets, packing and
piping can be removed from a steam turbine without creating asbestos dust."
Regular maintenance of steam turbines involves inspection of the blades
on the interior of the turbine and replacing the bearings on the turbine
shaft. If this maintenance work is not done, the turbine will not operate
properly. The work cannot be performed without dismantling the turbine
which in turn requires removal of the asbestos insulation covering the top
half of the turbine. Typically the insulation removed from the top half of
the turbine would be replaced with new insulation. On MSTS and other
ships, the maintenance for each turbine had to be done at approximately
4-5 year intervals. The insulation covering the bottom half of the turbine
did not have to be typically replaced in connection with regular
maintenance and that insulation often remained on the turbines for
considerably longer periods of time, although it too would deteriorate over
time. Additionally, regular maintenance of steam turbines requires the
replacement of asbestos gaskets and packing on the turbine and
associated piping. There is no way that asbestos insulation, gaskets,
packing and piping can be removed from a steam turbine without creating
asbestos dust.
Cooper also te-Stified that GE supplied precut gaskets with new turbines and that
GE service engineers were "involved in repairs." In his experience, GE "provided extra
sets of specially precut asbestos-containing gaskets along with their new turbines."
Cooper states, "In my work, I saw those spares and also on a number of occasions
subsequently ordered specially precut gaskets from the turbine manufacturers including
. . . GE." Cooper testified that GE "service engineering personnel were... commonly
involved in repairs or maintenance of the turbines they manufactured."
Dr. Heyer testified that work around GE turbines in the 1940s and 1950s
"resulted in exposures to asbestos that were substantially above ambient levels." Dr.
Hammar testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Woo's exposure to
asbestos was "a substantial contributing factor" causing mesothelioma.
8
No. 74458-5-1/9
In reply, GE asserted the evidence did not establish GE specified or supplied the
use of asbestos-containing products. GE maintained as a matter of law GE had no duty
to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing products used for the steam turbines. GE
also argued that because neither Cooper nor Dr. Heyer has "personal knowledge about
Mr. Woo's activities or the repair or maintenance history of any GE equipment on any
ship," the evidence did not establish causation.
The court ruled that under Simonetta and Braaten, GE did not have a duty to
warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and gaskets and
dismissed the lawsuit against GE.
Duty To Warn
The Estate contends that as in Macias, material issues of fact about whether GE
had a duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing products necessary for the
proper functioning of the steam turbines manufactured by GE preclude summary
judgment dismissal. GE asserts that as in Simonetta and Braaten, as a matter of law
GE did not have a duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing products it did not
manufacture.
We review summary judgment de novo. Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 383; Lunsford v.
Saberhaqen Holdinqs, Inc., 166 Wash. 2d 264, 270, 208 P.3d 1092(2009). We must view
the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Lunsford, 166 Wash. 2d at 270. Summary judgment is
appropriate only if the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits show there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. CR 56(c); Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 383.
9
No. 74458-5-1/10
In Simonetta, the defendants manufactured evaporators installed on Navy ships.
Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 346. The Navy applied asbestos insulation manufactured by
another company to the evaporators. Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 346. The plaintiff
argued the manufacturer of the evaporators, Viad Corp., had a duty to warn of the
hazards of asbestos-containing insulation because the company knew or should have
known the insulation would be used "in conjunction with" the evaporators. Simonetta,
165 Wash. 2d at 349. The manufacturer argued there is no duty to warn of the dangers
from asbestos-containing products the company did not manufacture, supply, or sell.
Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 350.
The Supreme Court held that under the Restatement(Second) of Torts § 388
(1965)and common law negligence principles, the duty to warn of the danger of
asbestos-containing products is limited to a manufacturer "in the chain of distribution."
Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 354. The court held that as a matter of law there was no duty
to warn because Viad did not "manufacture, sell, or supply the asbestos insulation" and
had "no control over the type of insulation the navy would choose." Simonetta, 165
Wash. 2d at 354, 363 n.8. "Because Viad did not manufacture, sell, or supply the asbestos
insulation, we hold that as a matter of law it had no duty to warn under[Restatement
(Second) of Torts'§ 388." Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 354.1
The court also concluded the manufacturer did not have a duty to warn under the
Restatement(Second) of Torts § 402A (1965). Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 354-55. The
court concluded that under Restatement(Second) of Torts § 402A, Viad is not
1 Under Restatement(Second)of Torts § 388, a manufacturer owes a duty to warn of hazards for
the use of a product that are or should be known to a manufacturer. Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 348.
10
No. 74458-5-1/11
"responsible for the asbestos contained in another manufacturer's product." Simonetta,
165 Wash. 2d at 362-63.2
In Braaten, the court affirmed summary judgment dismissal of failure to warn of
exposure to asbestos-containing insulation because the manufacturer defendants were
not "in the chain of distribution of the exterior insulation applied to their products."
Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 390-91.
We hold that the defendant-manufacturers had no duty under
common law products liability principles to warn of exposure to asbestos
in the thermal insulation applied to their products by the navy because a
manufacturer generally has no duty to warn of hazards associated with
another manufacturer's products.
Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 396.
The court then addressed whether manufacturers had a duty to warn of the
danger of exposure from asbestos-containing packing and gaskets manufactured by
others but "originally included in their products." Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 391. The
manufacturers did "not dispute that they would be liable for failure to warn of the danger
of exposure to asbestos in the packing and gaskets originally contained in their
products." Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 391. But the manufacturers argued the plaintiffs
testimony established "he did not work on new pumps and valves and that by the time
he worked on the defendants' products, it was impossible to tell how many times the
packing and gaskets had been replaced." Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 391.
2 Under Restatement(Second)of Torts § 402A, a product,"though faultlessly manufactured and
designed, may not be reasonably safe when placed in the hands of the ultimate user without first giving
an adequate warning concerning the manner in which to safely use the product." Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d
at 354-55. Under the Restatement(Second)of Torts § 402A, liability is imposed on manufacturers,
sellers, and distributors in the chain of distribution. Simonetta, 165 Wash. 2d at 355 (citing RESTATEMENT
(SECOND)OF TORTS § 402A, cmt. f).
11
No. 74458-5-1/12
Because the uncontroverted testimony established the plaintiff could not show
exposure to asbestos from packing and gaskets originally supplied, the court held there
was no duty to warn. Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 394.
[T]here is insufficient evidence to create a material question of fact
whether Mr. Braaten was exposed to the original packing and gaskets in
the defendants' products. Accordingly, we conclude that the
manufacturers had no duty to warn of the danger of exposure to asbestos
in packing and gaskets, breach of which would be actionable negligence.
Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 397.
The court also addressed whether the manufacturers had a duty to warn of the
danger of exposure "to asbestos in replacement packing and gaskets that the
defendants did not manufacture, sell, or otherwise supply, which replaced asbestos-
containing packing and gaskets in their products as originally sold." Braaten, 165
Wash. 2d at 380. The court held as a general rule there is no duty to warn of dangers
"associated with replacement parts, where the manufacturer did not design or
manufacture the replacement parts." Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 392.
We hold that the general rule that there is no duty under common law
products liability or negligence principles to warn of the dangers of
exposure to asbestos in other manufacturers' products applies with regard
to replacement packing and gaskets. The defendants did not sell or
supply the replacement packing or gaskets or otherwise place them in the
stream of commerce and did not specify asbestos-containing packing and
gaskets for use with their valves and pumps, and other types of materials
could have been used.
Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 380.
But the court in Braaten notes exceptions to the general rule. Braaten, 165
Wash. 2d at 385 n.7.
The general rule does not apply to a manufacturer who
incorporates a defective component into its finished product. [3D JOHN D.
HODSON & RICHARD E. KAY, AMERICAN LAW OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 32:9
12
No. 74458-5-1/13
(2004).] "The finished product manufacturer is not relieved of the duty to
warn merely because the defective component was manufactured by
another." [AMERICAN LAW OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 32:9].. . . In addition,
there are some cases where the combination of two sound products
creates a dangerous condition, and both manufacturers have a duty to
warn. [Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App. 1, 34, 703 A.2d 1315
(1998), abrogated on other grounds by John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner, 369
Md. 369, 800 A.2d 727(2002)]; see Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289, 298, 591 N.E.2d 222, 582 N.Y.S.2d 373(1992).
Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 385 n.7.
The court also expressly states that "[i]n light of the facts here," the court did not
reach the question of whether a duty to warn "might arise with respect to the danger of
exposure to asbestos-containing products specified by the manufacturer to be applied
to, in, or connected to their products, or required because of a peculiar, unusual, or
unique design." Braaten, 165 Wash. 2d at 397.
In Macias, the court held there were material issues of fact as to whether a
manufacturer had a duty to warn of the danger of exposure to asbestos. Macias, 175
Wash. 2d at 422. In Macias, the plaintiff Macias worked in a shipyard as a tool keeper.
Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 405. Macias was responsible for cleaning and maintaining
respirators that filtered out dangerous contaminants, including asbestos. Macias, 175
Wash. 2d at 406. Macias sued the respirator manufacturer alleging common law
negligence and product liability claims. Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 406. The manufacturer
filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that under Simonetta and Braaten, as a
matter of law it did not have a duty to warn. Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 407.
The Supreme Court reiterates that under Simonetta and Braaten, "'[t]he law
generally does not require a manufacturer to study and analyze the products of others
and warn users of the risks of those products,'" but that as the court noted in Braaten,
13
No. 74458-5-1/14
there are exceptions to the general rule. Macias, 175 Wn.2d at 4113(quoting Braaten,
165 Wash. 2d at 385). The court concluded the respirators "necessarily and purposefully
accumulated asbestos in them when they functioned exactly as they were planned to
function." Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 415. Because the respirators "inherently and
invariably posed the danger of exposure to asbestos[,]... [i]t does not matter that the
respirator manufacturers were not in the chain of distribution of products containing
asbestos when manufactured." Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 415-16.4
The court states that unlike in Simonetta and Braaten where the manufacturers
"did not require that asbestos be used in conjunction with their products" and did not
design the products to be used with asbestos,"the respirators at issue here were
specifically designed to and intended to filter contaminants from the air breathed by the
wearer, including asbestos." Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 414-15.
Critically, for present purposes, the products involved in the
Simonetta and Braaten cases did not require that asbestos be used in
conjunction with their products, nor were they specifically designed to be
used with asbestos. Nor were those products designed as equipment that
by its very nature would necessarily involve exposure to asbestos.
Unlike the valves, pumps, and evaporator in Simonetta and
Braaten, which only happened to be insulated by asbestos products
because the Navy chose to insulate the equipment on its ships with
asbestos products, the respirators at issue here were specifically designed
to and intended to filter contaminants from the air breathed by the wearer,
including asbestos, welding fumes, paint fumes, and dust.
Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 414-15.
The court also notes the products in Simonetta and Braaten "only came into
contact with asbestos because that was the purchaser-Navy's choice to use as
shipwide insulation." Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 416 n.4. Therefore, there was no "inherent,
3(Emphasis in original)(alteration in original)(internal quotation marks omitted).
4 Emphasis in original.
14
No. 74458-5-1/15
necessarily existent risk of exposure in use of products that, at the ultimate choice of the
purchaser, are coated with asbestos-containing insulation." Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 416
n.4. By contrast, when the respirators were used "exactly as designed and intended,
the respirators invariably and necessarily involve exposure to the specific contaminants
for which the respirator filters are designed." Macias, 175 Wash. 2d at 416 n.4.
Viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
Estate, material issues of fact preclude summary judgment on whether GE had a duty to
warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and gaskets
manufactured by others.
Unlike in Simonetta and Braaten, the evidence shows asbestos-containing
insulation, gaskets, and packing products were necessary for the steam turbines to
function as designed. There is a reasonable inference from the evidence that GE knew
only asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and gaskets were available in the 1940s
and 1950s and therefore, only asbestos-containing products could be used with the
steam turbines.
In the 1989 TIL, GE admits that asbestos is a health hazard; that before the
1970s, asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and gaskets were necessary for
operation of the GE turbines; and that only asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and
gaskets were available before the 1970s.5 With respect to thermal insulation for steam
turbines, the TIL states heat retention materials for new installations of steam turbines
were "usually purchased and field installed by GE to functional factory specifications."
5 GE asserts the TIL addresses only land-based GE turbines. But as the Estate points out, GE
presented no evidence that the same information does not apply to marine turbines. Further, the TIL
states, in pertinent part,"As health hazards of asbestos were recognized, new non-asbestos materials for
all turbine generator applications became available that enabled the current turbine-generator shipments
to be asbestos free." (Emphasis added.)
15
No. 74458-5-1/16
The TIL states, "[N]on-asbestos equivalent materials became available" only in the
"early 1970's." Cooper also testified steam turbines used aboard Navy and MSTS ships
in the 1940s and 1950s "require[d] insulation on the exterior in order to function
properly." Cooper testified the steam turbines "cannot function without insulation."
The evidence shows Woo worked on the USS MacKenzie when it was first
commissioned. An excerpt from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Vol. III
77(1968)shows the USS MacKenzie was "launched 13 May 1945 ... and
commissioned 13 July 1945." Service records show Woo served as a machinist aboard
the USS MacKenzie from July 1945 until May 1946.
With respect to asbestos packing and gaskets, the T1L states that before 1989,
"asbestos containing materials have been used exclusively" for flat sheet gaskets and
"the industry has only recently developed suitable non-asbestos replacements." Cooper
testified GE "provided extra sets of specially precut asbestos-containing gaskets along
with their new turbines." Cooper states that "steam turbines require asbestos gaskets to
seal piping flange connections and asbestos packing on the nozzle valves." Unlike in
Braaten, because Woo worked aboard the USS MacKenzie when it was first
commissioned, there is a reasonable inference Woo was exposed to the original
asbestos packing and gaskets that GE supplied.
Causation
GE asserts that even if it had a duty to warn of the danger from exposure to
asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and gaskets manufactured by others, there is
no evidence of causation. GE argues no evidence shows Woo was exposed to
asbestos used in conjunction with GE steam turbines while working aboard Navy and
16
No. 74458-5-1/17
MSTS ships in the 1940s and 1950s. Viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences
in favor of Woo,the record does not support GE's argument.
A plaintiff may establish exposure to asbestos from a defendant's product
through circumstantial evidence. Lockwood v. A C & S, Inc., 109 Wash. 2d 235, 246-47,
744 P.2d 605(1987); Allen v. Asbestos Corp., 138 Wash. App. 564, 571, 157 P.3d 406
• (2007). But"'there must be reasonable inferences to establish the fact to be proved.'"
Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co., 159 Wash. App. 724, 729, 248 P.3d 1052(2011)(quoting
Arnold v. Sanstol, 43 Wash. 2d 94, 99, 260 P.2d 327(1953)).
In Lockwood, the Washington Supreme Court identified several factors to
consider in determining whether there is evidence of causation: (1) plaintiffs proximity
to the asbestos product when the exposure occurred;(2) the expanse of the work site
where asbestos fibers were released;(3)the extent of time plaintiff was exposed to the
product;(4) what types of asbestos products the plaintiff was exposed to, including
asbestos fibers released into the air;(5) how the plaintiff handled and used those
products;(6) expert testimony on the effects of inhalation of asbestos in general and the
plaintiff in particular; and (7)evidence of other substances that could have contributed
to the plaintiffs disease and expert testimony on the combined effect of exposure to all
possible sources of the disease. Lockwood, 109 Wash. 2d at 248-49. "Ultimately, the
sufficiency of the evidence of causation will depend on the unique circumstances of
each case." Lockwood, 109 Wash. 2d at 249. But "the factors listed above are matters
which trial courts should consider when deciding if the evidence is sufficient to take
such cases to the jury." Lockwood, 109 Wash. 2d at 249.
17
No. 74458-5-1/18
Here, the reasonable inferences from the evidence show Woo worked in the
engine room aboard Navy and MSTS ships in the 1940s and 1950s and GE
manufactured the steam turbines used on those ships. Cooper worked as an engineer
on ships during the same period of time. Cooper testified that "much of Mr. Woo's work
in the Navy and particularly at MSTS, would have been in the various ships' engine
spaces where the turbines were located." Cooper also testified that "[m]uch of... the
work of. . . people in the engineering spaces aboard the MSTS ships was with or in
close proximity to the various turbines." Cooper described the circumstances that would
result in exposure to asbestos as follows:
Generally, asbestos exposure aboard ships, including MSTS ships,
resulted when: (1) external asbestos insulation or "lagging" is removed
from machinery such as turbines to make repairs/inspections;(2) asbestos
pipe covering is disturbed during normal repair procedures;(3) asbestos
gaskets are scraped out and replaced on the machinery;(4) asbestos
packing is dug out of flanges and packing glands and replaced; and (5)
dust from deteriorated or cracked insulation being given off during rough
weather or vibration occurring while the ships were moving. These
activities occurred on a regular basis as part of the standard procedure on
board all ships during the years when asbestos containing insulation,
packing and gaskets were in use.
According to Cooper, it was "not uncommon to see dust or other debris from the
insulation on and around the turbines while working in the engineering spaces." Cooper
testified about repairs to the steam turbines. Cooper testified that "regular maintenance
of steam turbines requires the replacement of asbestos gaskets and packing." Cooper
testified there "is no way that asbestos insulation, gaskets, packing and piping can be
removed from a steam turbine without creating asbestos dust."
Industrial hygiene expert Dr. Heyer testified that Woo's work in the engineering
spaces near GE turbines "resulted in exposures to asbestos that were substantially
18
No. 74458-5-1/19
above ambient levels" and "vibration aboard ships also resulted in the release of
asbestos fibers from the asbestos insulation on the turbines." Dr. Heyer's declaration
states, in pertinent part:
In my opinion, Mr. Woo's work in engineering spaces around GE...
turbines resulted in exposures to asbestos that were substantially above
ambient levels. This would be true even when work was not being done to
or near the turbines because, as discussed in a number of the above
articles, the vibration aboard ships also resulted in the release of asbestos
fibers from the asbestos insulation on the turbines.
Dr. Ham mar testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Woo's exposure
to asbestos was "a substantial contributing factor" causing mesothelioma. The
evidence creates a reasonable inference that Woo was exposed to asbestos insulation,
packing, and gaskets.
Because material issues of fact preclude summary judgment, we reverse
dismissal of the lawsuit against GE and remand for trial.
WE CONCUR:
47e,
19