UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2055

LISA COVINGTON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Otis 

Garnes, Deceased; MARQUISE GARNES; JOYCE GARNES; MARVIN GARNES; 

ARNETTA HUDSON; DELORSE ALCINDOR; LINDA EDWARDS,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

OTIS GARNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCIC, INC., Its Remaining Director Trustees, Robert I. 

McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Schunk; GENERAL 

ELECTRIC COMPANY; WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, 

Successor to the Wallace & Gale Company; SB DECKING, INC.; WAYNE 

MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., f/k/a Owens-Illinois, Incorporated; 

DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; 

SELBY, BATTERSBY & COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CBS 

CORPORATION, f/k/a Westinghouse and B. F. Sturtevant; PREMIER 

REFRACTORIES, f/k/a J.H. France Refractories Company; THE 

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; RHI REFRACTORIES AMERICA, f/k/a RHI 

AG; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.; H.B. FULLER COMPANY, f/k/a 

Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster; INTERNATIONAL 

PAPER CORPORATION, f/k/a Champion International Corporation, 

f/k/a U.S. Plywood Corp. & Champion Papers, Inc.; COOPER 

INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as Successors in Interest to 

Crouse Hinds Co; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; FERRO ENGINEERING, 

Division of Oglebay Norton Co.; FOSECO, INC.; GARLOCK SEALING 

TECHNOLOGIES LLC; SQUARE D COMPANY, Individually and as 
2

Successor in Interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing 

Co; GREEN, TWEED & CO., Individually and as Successor in 

Interest to Palmetto Inc.; E.L. STEBBING & CO., INC.; HAMPSHIRE 

INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company; CERTAINTEED 

CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor to Bestwall Gypsum 

Co.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., 

Individually and as Successor In Interest to Benjamin Foster 

Co., Amchem Products, Inc. H.B. Fuller Co., Aventis Cropscience 

USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. 

and Rhodia, Inc.; PFIZER CORPORATION; GENERAL REFRACTORIES 

COMPANY; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., Successor to Bendix Corporation; 

DITCH BOWERS & TAYLOR, INC.; TPC CORP., Individually and as 

Successor in Interest to Wareheim Air Brakes; WAREHEIM AIR 

BRAKES, INC.; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; 

PNEUMO-ABEX CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to Abex 

Corporation; GL&V DORR-OLIVER INCORPORATED, Individually and/or 

as Successors in Interest to Keeler Boiler Works and Dorr-Oliver 

Boiler Co.; AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., Individually and as 

Succesor in Interest to Kewanee Boiler Manufacturing Co., 

Westinghouse Air Brake Company and Union Switch & Signal; CRANE 

CO., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Chapman Valve 

Co., Deming Pumps, Cochrane Corp., Cochrane, Inc., Crane Pumps 

and Pacific Steel Boiler Co; GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; 

UNIROYAL, INC.; AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.; ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY; 

ALLITE GASKETS; FLEXITALLIC GASKET CO., INC.; MELRATH GASKET,

INC.; PARAMOUNT PACKING & RUBBER CO.; PHELPS PACKING & RUBBER 

CO.; WORTHINGTON PUMP, INC., f/k/a Dresser Pump Division; WAYNE 

MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; DANA CORPORATION; BABCOCK & WILCOX 

COMPANY; CROKER, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY; QUIGLEY 

COMPANY, INC., a Subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc.; WARREN PUMPS, INC.; 

ALFA LAVAL, INC., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to 

Sharples, Inc., Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. and DeLaval 

Separator Co.; ALLIS CHALMERS; DRESSER-RAND CO., f/k/a Terry 

Turbines, Individually and as Parent Corporation and Successorin-Interest to Terry Steam Turbines; FMC CORPORATION, 

individually and Successor-in-Interest to Peerless Pumps and 

Stearns Electric Co.; I.M.O. INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a DeLaval 

Turbine, Inc., f/k/a Delaval, Inc., f/k/a IMP Delaval, Inc., 

Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to DeLaval Turbine, 

Inc. and Warren Pumps, Inc; MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY, Individually 

and as Successor-in-Interest to Worthington Pumps, Worthington 

Pumps, Inc. and Turbodyne Corp.; FOSTER WHEELER LLC; FOSTER 

WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.,

Defendants,
3

v.

JOHN CRANE INCORPORATED,

Third Party Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. 

(1:12-cv-00461-GLR)

Argued: December 9, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Harry Goldman, Jr., Robert Gordon Skeen, SKEEN, GOLDMAN, 

LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Mitchell Y. Mirviss, 

VENABLE LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; David William Allen, GOODELL, 

DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Frank Ford 

Loker, Jr., MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland; 

Louis Eberhardt Grenzer, Jr., BODIE, DOLINA, HOBBS, FRIDDELL & 

GRENZER, P.C, Towson, Maryland; Donald Stephen Meringer, 

MERINGER, ZOIS & QUIGG, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

ON BRIEF: John Amato, IV, GOODMAN, MEAGHER & ENOCH, LLP, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Theodore F. Roberts, Scott 

M. Richmond, VENABLE LLP, Towson, Maryland; David J. Quigg, 

MERINGER, ZOIS & QUIGG, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Derek P. 

Roussillon, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland; 

Terri Goldberg, Aaron L. Moore, GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, 

LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
4

PER CURIAM:

The estate of Otis Garnes, along with his eight surviving 

children, appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

for defendants MCIC Inc. (“MCIC”), General Electric Corporation

(“GE”), Wallace and Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (“Wallace and 

Gale”), SB Decking Inc. (“SB Decking”), and Wayne Manufacturing 

Company (“Wayne”). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Otis Garnes died of lung cancer in 2005 at the age of 83. 

In 2008, the appellants filed this wrongful death suit in 

Maryland state court against 63 companies, alleging that Garnes’ 

lung cancer was caused in part by exposure to asbestoscontaining products sold or installed by those companies. The 

case was removed to federal court. Over time, the appellants

voluntarily dismissed or consented to summary judgment for 58 

defendants, leaving only the five appellees. The district court 

granted summary judgment for each of the five appellees.

Federal Civil Procedure Rule 56(a) provides that the 

district court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” On a motion 

for summary judgment, we view “all facts and reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 

Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of America, 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2012). We review a summary judgment order de novo. Lee 
5

Graham Shopping Ctr., LLC v. Estate of Kirsch, 777 F.3d 678, 681 

(4th Cir. 2015).

The district court held that the appellants failed to 

provide evidence of exposure to any products manufactured or 

installed by MCIC, Wallace and Gale, SB Decking, or GE

sufficient to meet the “frequency, regularity, and proximity” 

test for substantial-factor causation in Maryland negligence 

cases alleging asbestos exposure. See Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. 

v. Balbos, 326 Md. 179, 210 (Md. 1990); Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh 

Corning Corp., 782 F.3d 1156, 1162 (4th Cir. 1986). Because the 

appellants could not meet that test, their claims failed as a 

matter of law.

The district court further held that the plaintiffs failed 

to raise a genuine dispute as to whether Wayne is subject to 

personal jurisdiction. The court found that Wayne, a Virginia 

corporation, did not have sufficient “minimum contacts” with 

Maryland to permit an exercise of personal jurisdiction

consistent with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. See Consulting Engineers Corp. v. Geometric Ltd.,

561 F.3d 273, 277 (4th Cir. 2009) (A defendant must have 

“sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state such that 

‘the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions 

of fair play and substantial justice.’”)(quoting Int’l Shoe Co. 

v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).
6

Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, and 

having had the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the judgment 

based on the reasoning of the district court.*

AFFIRMED

 * The appellants also argue that the district court abused 

its discretion by denying their Rule 60(b)(1) motion to file an

opposition to GE’s motion for summary judgment out-of-time. We 

find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

failing to grant plaintiffs a third extension of time. See Home 

Port Rentals, Inc. v. Ruben, 957 F.2d 126, 132 (4th Cir. 

1992)(explaining that plaintiffs must show that they were not at 

fault in order to show excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1)).