Last week, in the matter In re Toy Asbestos, the trial court in the Northern District of California granted CMBG3’s client’s (defendant Armstrong International, Inc.) motion for summary judgment (Toy – Dkt 563 – Order Granting Armstrong’s MSJ).
After serving in the United States Army, the decedent had spent much of his career as a civilian employee at Navy facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area, including aboard Navy vessels. Mr. Toy testified at deposition that he worked with Armstrong’s steam traps at Treasure Island Naval Station buildings, but did not identify any work with Armstrong’s steam traps aboard any Navy vessel. Mr. Toy testified that he worked with flange gaskets and insulation that he associated with the Armstrong steam traps, but did not work with any internal components.
Armstrong’s motion for summary judgment asserted that there was no evidence linking it to the flange gaskets or insulation to which Plaintiffs claimed Mr. Toy was exposed during his work with steam traps. Further, because this work took place on land and not aboard any Navy vessel, the Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries (2019) 139 S.Ct. 986, 995 exception under maritime law to the third-party component or “bare metal” defense did not apply.
In re Toy Asbestos Litigation, N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:19-cv-00325-HSG