IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION

DOROTHY CHARBONNEAU, 

individually and as personal 

representative of the estate of ROBERT 

CHARBONNEAU, deceased, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

FAIRBANKS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

) C.A. No. N15C-01-045 ASB

)

)

)

)

)

)

July 12, 2017

Upon Defendant Fairbanks Company’s

Motion for Summary Judgment. GRANTED.

Plaintiff Dorothy Charbonneau (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) cannot satisfy the 

summary judgment criteria.1

Plaintiff alleges that her husband, Robert Charbonneau, was exposed to 

asbestos from Defendant Fairbanks Company’s (“Fairbanks” or “Defendant”)

products while working as a maintenance man and welder for several employers in 

Massachusetts. Plaintiff is the only product identification witness in this action. 

 

1

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56; Smith v. Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., 2013 WL 6920864, at *3 (Del. 

Super. Dec. 30, 2013); see 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).
During his deposition he recalled Defendant’s brand of valves as a product he 

worked with at both Greeting Cards and Gordon Chemical. He worked with both 

globe valves and gate valves. At the Oxford Housing Authority he testified that he 

worked with gate valves, globe valves, and a zone valve with a ball valve in both 

ends. He described the valves as brass in color, and stated that these brass colored 

valves were present at all the sites he worked at. He stated that while at Gordon 

Chemical he installed new Fairbanks valves and removed Fairbanks valves. He 

testified that he replaced the packing and external insulation on the valves and 

broken valve handles. He testified that the packing was located at the stem of the 

valve. To access the packing Mr. Charbonneau had to unscrew the packing nut on 

the shaft, and sometimes use a packing remover tool or a pair of pliers to get the 

packing out. When asked where the external packing came from, Mr. 

Charbonneau stated that the packing came from the supply house. As for the 

external insulation, Mr. Charbonneau described the insulation as white, and the 

insulation was located on the valve itself. Mr. Charbonneau removed the insulation 

in order to remove the valve itself. He stated that the maintenance crew supplied 

the insulation. The new insulation came in powder form and needed to be mixed. 

Mr. Charbonneau applied this mix with his hands. When asked if he believed the 

packing he removed and installed contained asbestos, he stated that he assumed it 

did because of the high heat that was going through the pipes. 
Defendant argues that the record lacks evidence that the valve packing 

contained asbestos, and that Defendant manufactured the asbestos packing. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant required asbestos for use with its valve products, 

and Plaintiff provided six different catalogues for the proposition that Defendant 

“specifically and regularly called for the use of asbestos gaskets and packing” with 

its products. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Charbonneau testified from personal 

knowledge about removing asbestos on piping, and that Mr. Charbonneau replaced 

Fairbanks valves with other Fairbanks valves. He also testified that the Fairbanks 

valves were externally insulated. Under Massachusetts law:

To prove causation in an asbestos case, the plaintiff must establish (1) 

that the defendant's product contained asbestos (product 

identification), (2) that the victim was exposed to the asbestos in the 

defendant's product (exposure), and (3) that such exposure was a 

substantial contributing factor in causing harm to the victim 

(substantial factor).2

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Defendant had no duty 

to warn of asbestos parts from another manufacturer. Plaintiff presented evidence 

that Mr. Charbonneau installed and removed Fairbanks valves, and that some of 

Fairbanks valves were sold with asbestos component parts. Plaintiff supplied 

answers to interrogatories stating that some Fairbanks valves contained asbestos 

gaskets and packing between the 1930s and 1980s. Defendant argues that under 

 

2 Morin v. AutoZone Ne., Inc., 943 N.E.2d 495, 499 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011).
Massachusetts law it is not liable for other manufacturers’ asbestos containing 

products. Although Plaintiff demonstrated that Fairbanks sold valves that 

contained asbestos gaskets and packing, Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that 

the packing and gaskets were manufactured by Fairbanks. Mr. Charbonneau 

testified that he installed and removed Fairbanks valves. In Massachusetts to 

“prove causation in an asbestos case, it is plaintiff’s principal burden to show that a 

defendant’s product contained asbestos and that the victim was exposed to the 

asbestos in the defendant’s product.”3 As stated by this Court before, 

“Massachusetts courts have never held a manufacturer liable . . . for failure to warn 

of risks created solely in the use or misuse of the product of another 

manufacturer.”4 There is no evidence in the record that the replacement parts Mr. 

Charbonneau worked with were asbestos parts manufactured or supplied by 

Defendant, Fairbanks. Simply because a Plaintiff worked with a Defendant’s 

product, without evidence beyond speculation that the product contained asbestos, 

and the asbestos containing part was manufactured by Defendant, a reasonable jury 

could not infer exposure. Specifically in this case, external packing, packing inside 

the valves, and gaskets with the valves were replaced numerous times. Without 

any indication that the replacement packing, external insulation, or parts in the 

 

3 Whiting v. CBS Corp., 2013 WL 530860, at *1 (Mass. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2013)(emphasis 

added).

4

In re Asbestos Lit., Cosner, 2012 WL 1694442 (Del. Super. May 14, 2012).
Fairbanks valve were manufactured by Fairbanks, Plaintiff asks the Court to 

speculate that Defendant is responsible. When viewing the evidence in a light 

most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could not infer that Mr. Charbonneau

was exposed to asbestos from Fairbanks product beyond speculation. Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin L. Scott

The Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr.