The Ninth Circuit has opposed a summary judgement ruling in favor of manufacturers of asbestos products from a lower court in the asbestos case of a Naval worker who died from asbestos fiber inhalation.

Navy machinist Robert G. worked for the Navy, the Army and the Department of Defense for nearly 40 years from 1952 to 1989.

According to the asbestos case his daughter opened in 2012, Robert was regularly exposed to asbestos fibers from the materials he handled.

Because he was around asbestos-laden materials so much, his daughter believes that his death in 2010 was as a result of the hazardous and poisonous material. She claims that the asbestos gave him progressive, cumulative and incurable lung disease.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that has, in the past, used widely in manufacturing because of its flame retardant qualities. It was used extensively in shipyards and historically, shipyard workers are among the most exposed populations.

Asbestos fibers, when they become airborne, can become lodged in the lungs. The body cannot expel them from the lungs. Over time, this creates inflammation and abestosis and can cause lung cancers.

Asbestos Case Summary Judgement Vacated by 9th Circuit

Robert’s daughter, Kimbra G., as well as 4 other members of Robert’s family filed this asbestos case and named many defendants including General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Inc. in San Francisco Federal Court.

After their complaint was amended, it contained four claims. The plaintiffs’ claims were negligence, products liability, survival and wrongful death.

The San Francisco Federal Court dismissed several defendants in this asbestos case, but kept General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls. The court granted summary judgement in favor of both of the remaining Virginia-based defendants.

However, the family of the deceased appealed the ruling.

The Ninth Circuit Court just recently vacated the summary judgment ruling saying that the San Francisco federal court never ruled on the central argument to the case.

The defendants in this asbestos case claimed that, in essence, the government required them to do what they did.

The four-page ruling stated that “the defendant must show that it acted in compliance with reasonably precise specifications imposed on it by the United States in deciding whether to provide a warning.”

Because the manufacturers were essentially under a government contract, they must prove that the government gave them certain specifications about how they labeled the products.

This asbestos case ruling goes on to say that “Here, the parties pointed to conflicting evidence regarding the Navy’s labeling policies, so summary judgment is not appropriate.”

Additionally the Ninth Circuit judges wrote, “The California Supreme Court has recently made clear that the summary judgment entered by the district court, in reliance on a decision by the multi-district litigation court in Pennsylvania, was based on an incorrect understanding of California law.”

The judges noted that in order to hide behind an intermediary defense for this asbestos case, the product supplier must reasonably show that it had actually relied on a knowledgeable intermediary.