Kawaski v. Union Pump Company

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION: )
)
THEODORE K. KAWASAKI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. N13C-11-314 ASB
UNION PUMP COMPANY, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Decided: January 9, 2017
Updated: April 3, 2017
ORDER
Upon Defendant Crane Co.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. GRANTED.
Plaintiff, Theodore Kawaski’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), claims cannot
survive the summary judgment criteria.1
Plaintiff Theodore Kawasaki (hereinafter “Mr. Kawasaki”), claims that he
contracted lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos as a mechanic for Brewer
Environmental Industries in Honolulu, Hawaii, and Hilo, Hawaii from 1971 to
1995. Plaintiff relies on his co-workers as product identification witnesses.
1
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56; Smith v. Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., 2013 WL 6920864, at *3 (Del.
Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 2013); see also Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979); Nutt v.
A.C. & S., Inc., 517 A.2d 690, 692 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986); In re Asbestos Litigation (Helm), 2012
WL 3264925 (Del. Aug. 13, 2012).
Michael Bringman (hereinafter “Mr. Bringman”) testified that Mr. Kawasaki
would take out the packing around the valves on pipes. Mr. Bringman testified
that he believed the packing and the gaskets contained asbestos. However, Mr.
Bringman did not recall the names of the valves or pumps at the facility. Richard
W. Nunes, (hereinafter “Mr. Nunes”) also worked with Mr. Kawasaki, and testified
Mr. Kawasaki removed insulation from valves. He testified that he never saw Mr.
Kawasaki do any gasket removal on a valve, but he recalled Mr. Kawasaki being
around Crane valves that others were removing and replacing gasket work.
Plaintiff also offered deposition testimony from William McLean, a Crane
corporate representative. Mr. McLean stated that “in the late 70’s [Crane] began to
substitute other materials for packing and gaskets where [they] could. And that
was carried through the late 80’s, by which time Crane ceased using asbestos
containing products in the form of gaskets and packing.” Mr. McLean also
testified that Crane supplied replacement parts such as packing or gaskets.
Plaintiff also refers to a 1949 and 1952 Crane Catalog as evidence that Crane
supplied asbestos containing insulation and cements to customers.
Plaintiff argues that there is an issue of material fact, and thus summary
judgment is inappropriate, regarding whether Defendant had a duty to warn of
asbestos exposure because Defendant specified the use of asbestos containing
component parts for use on its valves. However, Plaintiff has not presented
evidence that he was exposed to asbestos through Defendant’s product. First, Mr.
Bringman did not identify a Crane Co. product that Plaintiff worked with.
Similarly, there is no evidence in the record beyond speculation that Plaintiff was
exposed to asbestos from a product that Defendant manufactured. Mr. Bringman
stated that he would come into contact with valves, but did not identify the
manufacturer. Mr. Nunes testified that he recalled seeing Mr. Kawaski around
Crane valves in which he was doing gasket work but there is no evidence that the
gaskets or insulation Mr. Kawasaki used were manufactured by Crane, or the age
of the products. Under Hawaii law, “a manufacturer owes a duty to warn
regarding its own product, not regarding products it did not produce, sell, or
control.”2 Further, Plaintiff’s product identification witnesses were unable to
testify as to whether he worked on an original pump or valve manufactured by
Crane. When viewing the record in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has
not established, without undue speculation, that Defendant is responsible for Mr.
Kawasaki’s asbestos exposure.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Calvin L. Scott
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
2
Acoba v. General Tire, Inc., 986 P.2d 288 (Haw. 1999).