IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION:

THEODORE K. KAWASAKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNION PUMP COMPANY,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) C.A. No. N13C-11-314 ASB

)

)

)

)

Decided: January 9, 2017

Updated: April 3, 2017

ORDER

Upon Defendant Crane Co.’s

Motion for Summary Judgment. GRANTED.

Plaintiff, Theodore Kawaski’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), claims cannot 

survive the summary judgment criteria.1

Plaintiff Theodore Kawasaki (hereinafter “Mr. Kawasaki”), claims that he

contracted lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos as a mechanic for Brewer 

Environmental Industries in Honolulu, Hawaii, and Hilo, Hawaii from 1971 to 

1995. Plaintiff relies on his co-workers as product identification witnesses. 

 

1

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

Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 2013); see also 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).
Michael Bringman (hereinafter “Mr. Bringman”) testified that Mr. Kawasaki 

would take out the packing around the valves on pipes. Mr. Bringman testified 

that he believed the packing and the gaskets contained asbestos. However, Mr. 

Bringman did not recall the names of the valves or pumps at the facility. Richard 

W. Nunes, (hereinafter “Mr. Nunes”) also worked with Mr. Kawasaki, and testified 

Mr. Kawasaki removed insulation from valves. He testified that he never saw Mr.

Kawasaki do any gasket removal on a valve, but he recalled Mr. Kawasaki being 

around Crane valves that others were removing and replacing gasket work. 

Plaintiff also offered deposition testimony from William McLean, a Crane 

corporate representative. Mr. McLean stated that “in the late 70’s [Crane] began to 

substitute other materials for packing and gaskets where [they] could. And that 

was carried through the late 80’s, by which time Crane ceased using asbestos 

containing products in the form of gaskets and packing.” Mr. McLean also 

testified that Crane supplied replacement parts such as packing or gaskets. 

Plaintiff also refers to a 1949 and 1952 Crane Catalog as evidence that Crane 

supplied asbestos containing insulation and cements to customers. 

Plaintiff argues that there is an issue of material fact, and thus summary 

judgment is inappropriate, regarding whether Defendant had a duty to warn of 

asbestos exposure because Defendant specified the use of asbestos containing 

component parts for use on its valves. However, Plaintiff has not presented 
evidence that he was exposed to asbestos through Defendant’s product. First, Mr. 

Bringman did not identify a Crane Co. product that Plaintiff worked with. 

Similarly, there is no evidence in the record beyond speculation that Plaintiff was 

exposed to asbestos from a product that Defendant manufactured. Mr. Bringman 

stated that he would come into contact with valves, but did not identify the 

manufacturer. Mr. Nunes testified that he recalled seeing Mr. Kawaski around 

Crane valves in which he was doing gasket work but there is no evidence that the 

gaskets or insulation Mr. Kawasaki used were manufactured by Crane, or the age 

of the products. Under Hawaii law, “a manufacturer owes a duty to warn 

regarding its own product, not regarding products it did not produce, sell, or 

control.”2 Further, Plaintiff’s product identification witnesses were unable to 

testify as to whether he worked on an original pump or valve manufactured by 

Crane. When viewing the record in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has 

not established, without undue speculation, that Defendant is responsible for Mr. 

Kawasaki’s asbestos exposure.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby 

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Calvin L. Scott

Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.

 

2

Acoba v. General Tire, Inc., 986 P.2d 288 (Haw. 1999).