### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00150- CV

Jul ie Ry an, Indi vid ual ly a nd as P e r so nal Re pr e se nt at ive of t he He ir s a nd Est at e of G le nn

Ryan, Dece ased, Jam es Ryan, and B randie F ellows , Appellan ts

v. KC G, Inc., A ppellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN400328 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellants Jul ie Ry an, individually and as persona l repre sentative for the heirs a

nd estate of Glenn Ry an, James Ry an, and Br andie Fe llows ( collectively , “Ry an”) appea l from the trial court’s or der g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of appellee KCG, I nc. Ry an arg ues t hat the trial court e rre d in striking Glenn Ry an’s de position as summ ary judgme nt evidence . We affir m the trial court’s or der.

F actual and Proc edural Su m m ary

Gl e nn Ry an, Julie Ry an’ s late hu sb and , w a s a dr y wa ll f ini sh e r f or a bo ut t hir ty y e a rs , sta rt ingin t he lat e 19 60 s. I n Nov e mbe r 1 99 9, Mr . Ry an w a s d ia g no se d w ithlun g c anc e r, a nd in September 2000, he and his wi fe , as well as severa l other plaintiffs, sued a number of c ompanies associate d with asbestos-conta ining dr y wall produc ts. The plaintiffs alleg ed that the de fenda nts orThe plainti ffs asserted other ca uses of a ction specific to defe ndants other than K CG, but 1 those claims ar e not re levant to the ca use at ha nd. 2 the ir pr e de c e sso rs -i n- int e re st: (1 ) manu fa c tur e d, so ld, a nd dis tr ibute d a sb e sto s- c on ta ini ngpr od uc ts; (2) failed to timely and adequa tely war n of the risks associate d with a sbestos, provide infor mation about safe ty

equipment t o reduc e thos e risks, prope rly test asbestos produc ts before rele asing them for u s e , o r

d e v e lo p s u

b s ti tute mate r ia ls th a t d id n o t c o n ta in

a s b e s to s ; ( 3 ) w e r e s u

b je c t t o s tr ict liability for the harm caused by the asbestos-containing products; (4) c onspired to conc eal the r isks

a sso c ia te d w itha sb e sto s and de pr ive the pla int if

fs of an in fo rm e d c ho ic e a s to wh e the r to u se asbestos-c ontaining pr o d

u ct s ; an d (5 ) w er e n egl i gen tan d

co m m i t t edgro s s n egl i gen ce an d intentional wrong ful conduc t in their behavior related to the ir various asbestos products. Appellee KCG was 1 not one of the or igina l defe ndants and wa s not made par ty to the suit u n t i l Ap ri l 2000, when the plaintiffs filed their f

ourth amende d petition naming KCG a s succe ssor in interest for Ruco, I nc. Be cause of Mr. Ry an’s f ailing he alth, his deposition wa s t aken ear ly in the pr oc e e din g s, on

Oc tob e r 3 , 2 00 0, de sp ite ob je c tio ns by

on e of the de fe nd ants . M r. Ry an d ie d le ss than three wee ks later. On D ece mber 2, 2003, KCG f il ed a n o -e v i d ence motion for summary jud g me nt, arguin g tha

t Ry an c ou ld n ot p ro du c e e vid e nc e that Mr . Ry an w a s e xpos e d to a ny a sb e sto scontaining products manufacture d or supplied by KCG or Ruco. Ry an re sponded, pointing to Mr. Ry an ’ s O c to b e r 2 0 0 0 d e p o s it io n , in w h ic h h e s tate d th a t h e h a d u s e d o r w o r k e d in th e v ic inity

of numerous asbe stos-containing products throug hout his care er. K CG obj ec t ed t o t h e use of Mr. Ry an’s de position because Ry an had not timely listed Mr. Ry

a n a s a “pr oduct identification witness.” The trial c ourt ag ree d and struck the deposition as summary judgme nt evidence

. The trial c ourt then3

g rante d KCG’s motion for summary judgm en t an d s ever ed Ry an’s c laims ag ainst KCG from the oth e r c la ims , r e nd e ri ngthe su mmar y jud g me nt o rd e r f

ina l a nd a pp e a la ble . Ry an a

pp e a ls, complaining of the trial c ourt’s dec ision to st rike Mr. Ry an ’s d ep osition as summ ary judgme nt evidenc e and arguing that if the deposit ion is considere d, the re cord shows that she raise d a question of fa c t a s to wh e the r M r. Ry an w a s e xpos e d to a sb e sto s th ro ug h a Ruc o p ro du c t.

Discussion We have c are fully

re v i ewe d Ry an’s summary judgme nt evidence , including Mr

. Ry an’s de position t estimony , and we hold that, assuming that the de position shoul d not have be en struck by the trial cour

t, Ry an s t i l l d id not produce e vidence that Mr. Ry an wor ked with a Ruco pr od uc t th a t c on ta ine d a sb e sto s.

A par ty seekinga no-e vidence summary judgme nt asserts that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of the claim on which the opposing party will have the bur den of proof at trial. Holmstrom v. Lee , 26 S.W.3 d 5 26 , 5 30 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 00 , n o p e t.) ; see T e x. R. Civ. P . 166a(i). Atrial court should g rant a no-evide nce summary judgme nt if the non-movant does not produce more than a scintilla of probative evidenc e raising a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to the ele ments attacke d by the movant. Holmstrom , 26 S.W .3d at 530. I n revie wing a summary judgme nt, we view the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the non-movant a nd make e very

r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e an d r e s o lv e a ll d o u b ts in f a v o r o f th e n o n - movant. C enteq Re alty, Inc. v

. Siegler , 8 99 S.W. 2d

19 5, 19 7 ( Te x. 19 95 ); Holmstrom , 26 S.W .3d at 530. I n his de position, Mr. Ry an was asked “what br and of product [he] used on the job.” Mr. Ry an answ ere d, “USG, Gold Bond, Wellkote, Triko, Dur abond, Ruco, F ree mans, and that a bout4

sums it all up.” Asked, “Can y ou think of any other joint compounds that y ou may have use d,” Mr. Ry an answ ere d, “No; that about c overs them a l l as fa r as I ’m conc erne d.” He then was a sked whether he had use d “other asbestos conta ining pr oducts or mater ials,” and he said he ha d, mentioning a

cer tain kind of plaster. H e also testified that he had worke d near pipe wra ppers using asbestos-c ontaining insulation products. Mr. Ry an wa s next asked to talk in more de pth about “the products . . . [he] mainly used as a

dry wall insulator.” The at t o rn ey as ked Mr. Ry an about the “spec ific bra

nd names” he had pr ovided, asking , “And the na mes that y ou had listed were —y ou had lis t ed Go ld Bond a

nd y ou had listed Triko and you had listed USG joint compound and y ou had lis te d Dura

bo nd

. Wer e the re any oth e r a sb e sto s c on ta ini ng joi nt c omp ound s that y ou wo rk e d w ith over the course of y our ca

ree r as a dry waller ? ” Mr. Ry an answ ere d in the aff irmative and na

med two other produc ts. I n other words, Mr. Ry an re fer red to Ruco a s a produc t he had use d as a dr y waller but never identified Ruco as one of the asbestos-containing products he had used. N or did Mr. Ry an testify about when he used Ruco produc ts during his thirty -y ear car eer . As furthe r evide nce, Ry an produce d evidenc e showing that KCG was a succe ssor-ininteres t t o Ruco, which “ sold products which we re g ener ally known as dry

wall joint compound.” Ruco produce d joint compounds containing asbestos and sold those produc ts in I llinois , wher e Mr. Ry an wor ked as a dry wall finisher. Ry an also produc ed a 1977 le tter fr om Ruco to its custo m ers stating that it was discontinuing the sa le of a sbestos-containingjoint compound a s of Oc tober 1977. I n th a t le tte r, Ruc o s ta te d th a t it had so ld sig nif

ic ant q ua nti tie s o f n on -a sb e sto s p ro du c ts a s w e ll. Finally , Ry an pointed to an a ffidavit by Dr. Mar k C o l el l a, i n wh ich Dr. Colella state d that he had revie wed Mr. Ry an’s medic al re cords, wor k history , and deposition testimony . Dr. Colella opined,We f ur the r n ote that in he r d isc ov e ry re sp on se se tti ngou t a sb e sto s- c on ta ini ngpr od uc ts t o 2 w h i c h M r . Ry anw a s e xp o s e d , Ry and i d n o tl i s tan y

R u c o p r o d u c t s a m o n g t h e l i s to f

a s b e s t o scontaining p ro d u ct s t est ified to by Mr. Ry an’s de position. S he does state that two of Mr. Ry an’s fo rm e r c o- wo rk e rs “ may

te sti fy” a bo ut Mr

. Ry a

n’ s e xpos ur e to o the r a sb e sto s- c on ta ini ngpr od uc ts, including those manufa cture d by Ruco. 5 ba se d u po n th a t r e vie w, tha

t Mr . Ry an’ s lungc anc e r w a s c a us e d in pa rt by inh a la tio n of as be sto s d us t thr ou g ho ut h is c are e r a s a dr y waller . Co le lla

state d, “ Mr . Ry an te sti fi e d th a t he wa s e xpos e d to asbestos dust cre ated by

the sanding of Ruco joint compound and that he breathed this dust during his work as a

dry wall finisher. The dust from the sandingof Ruco joint compound p lay ed a substantial contributing f actor in causi n g M r. R y an’s lung ca ncer and death.” Mr. Ry an’s wor k his tor y sh e e ts r e vie we d b y

Dr . Co le lla

did no t li st R

uc o a s an a sb e sto s- c on ta ini ngpr od uc t w ith which he w orked. 2

Dr . Co le lla ’s state me nt i mpl ic a tin g Ruc o in Mr . Ry an’ s i nj urie s r e su lts fr om a misreading of Mr. Ry an’s testimony . The one answe r in which Mr. Ry an re fer red to a Ruco product

wa s in re sp on se to a

qu e sti on a sk ingno t w hat asbestos-containing products he had used, but what products he ha d used in his car eer . The evidence shows that Ruco made pr oducts both that contained

a sb e sto s and

wi tho ut a sb e sto s, and

Mr . Ry an n e ve r t e sti fi e d th a t he wo rk e d w ithor wa s e xpos e d to an asbe stos-containing Ruco product, only that he worke d with a Ruco product, a nd he neve r stated wh e n h e us e d Ru c o p ro du c ts.

D r . C o l e l l a

c a m e t o h i s c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d o nM r . Rya n ’ s d e p o s i t i o nt e s t i m o n y, medical r ecor ds, and work history sheets. Dr. C o l el l a’ s aff idavit does not demonstrate that he revie wed a

ny other testimony

or statements by

Mr. Ry an, and Mr . Ry an’s de position t estimony does not sa y what Dr. Colella say s it doe s. Dr. Colella’s misstatement of Mr. Ry an’s te s t i m o n y , ev en6

when r ead in conjunction with Mr. Ry an’s a ctual deposition testimony and wor k history , does not

cre ate a fac t issue as to whether

Mr. Ry an wa s exposed to asbestos t h ro u gh a Ruco produc t. Mr. Ry an w or ke d w ithnume ro us a sb e sto s- c on ta ini ngpr od uc ts t hro ugho ut his thi rt

y -y e ar c are e r a s a dry wall finisher a

nd in his deposition and work history , he mentioned sever al of those produc ts by

name . Ru c o, ho we ve r, wa s not one of tho se pr od uc ts name d by Mr . Ry an as c on ta ini nga sb e sto s. There fore , assuming w ithout deciding that Mr. Ry an ’s deposit ion should not have bee n struck, Ry an’ s e vid e nc e pr od

uc e d in re sp on se to KC G’s no -evid e nc e mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt s til l do e s no t a mou

nt t o e ve n a

sc int ill a of e vid e nc e a s to wh e the r M r. Ry an’ s lungc anc e r w a s c a us e d in part by an asbe stos-containing product manuf actur ed by

Ruco.

Conclusion Be cause Ry an fa iled to raise a question of fa ct as to whe ther Ruco, and there fore , KC G, mig ht b e pa

rt ia lly re sp on sib le fo r M r. Ry an’ s in jur ie s and de a th, the tr ia l c ourt did no t e rr in d is mi s s in g Ry an ’ s c la im s a g a in s t K CG an d in s e v e r in g th o s e c la im s f

r o m t h e r e s t o f th e la w s u it

. We

a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r o f d ism iss a l.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Affir med Filed: August 31, 2005