Whiting v. Buffalo Pumps, et al.

Case Updates

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants holding that there was no evidence the plaintiff's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos products manufactured or later supplied by the defendants and therefore the plaintiff could not prove an essential element of his claim.

The U.S. Chamber urged the Massachusetts Appeals Court to reject liability for product manufacturers who do not warn about hazardous substances used by others in combination with their products. In this case, plaintiffs claimed that the makers of products used in naval propulsion systems should be held liable for harms allegedly caused by asbestos-containing replacements parts manufactured or sold by third parties or by asbestos-containing external thermal insulation manufactured or sold by third parties and attached post-sale by the Navy. The Chamber's amicus brief argued that the plaintiffs' extreme liability theory, which has been rejected by nearly every court to consider it, would hold manufacturers liable for others' products. Such an expansion of asbestos liability would exacerbate the existing asbestos litigation crisis, and lead to legal and business chaos because the chain of warnings and liability would be so endless, unpredictable and speculative as to be worthless. The Chamber also warned that the plaintiffs' self-serving legal theory could undermine consumer safety through over-warning and through conflicting information.