Opinion ID: 2280027
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Exposure to Asbestos

Text: A plethora of evidence showed that Dexter was exposed to asbestos by many of the empty-chair defendants. Although much of this evidence was general in nature, some of it specifically identified manufacturers of asbestos used at the sites where Dexter worked and the sites themselves where he was exposed to asbestos. For example, Billy Robertson, a pipefitter who worked at the same union as Dexter, identified several companies who provided asbestos-containing thermal insulation and several worksites at which Dexter would have been exposed to their products. [4] Similar testimony was heard from Herman Mitchell, another pipefitter at Dexter's union; [5] and Ron Eades, an insulator who did not know Dexter but had worked at the GE plant during the same time period, testified likewise. [6] Dexter's verified complaint and sworn interrogatories, which were introduced into evidence, made similar assertions. [7] And Dexter's son, who often worked alongside his father, identified certain insulation brands and jobsites. Dexter himself identified empty-chair defendants in whose employ or from whose product he was exposed to asbestos. For example, Dexter stated in his interrogatories that while working at the GE plant, from 1969 until 1971, he worked with and/or around asbestos-containing pipe and block insulation on steam lines, asbestos-containing gasket and packing materials, asbestos cloth, asbestos cements . . ., asbestos-containing muds, mastics, and other materials. He also specifically identified Kay[l]o pipe and block insulation, which is made by empty-chair defendant Owens-Corning, and Careytemp pipe covering, which is sold by empty-chair defendant Rapid American, as being used at the GE site. Similarly, Dexter's son testified that he worked in the immediate vicinity of his father at the GE plant and that [i]n a lot of cases they were both exposed to asbestos dust from insulation. He even recalled a particular instance where this occurred. This testimony about Dexter's exposure was corroborated by Eades, who testified that if [Dexter] was at Mount Vernon at the General Electric plant working as a pipefitter, he was exposed to asbestos. Last, a defense expert, Dr. Michael Graham, established that the type of fibers in Dexter's lungs were overwhelmingly of a type that could not have come from either of the participating defendants' products. Specifically, he testified that Dexter's lungs contained primarily amosite fiber, whereas CertainTeed and Garlock products contain only crocidolite fibers. This further established that Dexter was exposed, to a substantial extent, to other asbestos products. The Court of Appeals opinion largely focuses on this issue. Specifically, the court rejected CertainTeed's claim that the type of fibers found in Dexter's lungs demonstrates his exposure to other products used by or manufactured by the empty-chair defendants. The court noted that CertainTeed's and Garlock's products also contained chrysotile asbestos fibers, which have a very short half-life compared to other types of asbestos fibers. According to one of Dexter's experts, this short half-life means that it was not uncommon to find very little evidence of chrysotile asbestos fibers in the lungs of a worker exposed even to substantial amounts of it. While the Court of Appeals was correct that this did not necessarily demonstrate that Dexter was exposed to very little of CertainTeed's and Garlock's products, it does not also show that Dexter was not exposed to amosite-containing products. The proof of such fibers in his lungs proved at least some exposure to products other than those manufactured by Certain-Teed and Garlock. The Court of Appeals also thought that the evidence of exposure was not sufficiently specific, explaining there was a complete lack of proof as to the type, length or depth of asbestos exposure by any other defendant. Essentially, it felt that the evidence of exposure was not particularized enough with respect to the empty-chair defendants. It is true that the evidence of exposure to the empty-chair defendants was not as specific as it was to the participating defendants. However, this Court disagrees that the evidence was so general or otherwise wanting that the trial court was clearly erroneous in concluding that it required some apportionment. The evidence showed Dexter's length of exposure at the GE plant was from 1969 to 1971 and identified several brands of asbestos products used at that site. Dexter's son, who worked in the immediate vicinity of his father, recalled specific incidents of exposure at that site; and there was evidence that the types of asbestos fibers in Dexter's lungs could not have possibly come from the participating defendants. Although the evidence of exposure to the participating defendants was certainly more specific, we cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong to conclude that the evidence of exposure here would be enough to require apportionment. To some extent, the Court of Appeals' concern about the duration and intensity of Dexter's exposure goes more toward causation than mere opportunity for exposure. But these are slightly different concepts, and as discussed below, there was other, more specific evidence of legal causation.