Court Opinion

ID: 9386579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 21:00:30.467439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:07.383849
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1074      Doc: 25         Filed: 04/11/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-1074

        BELINDA LIPSCOMB FOUSHEE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anneka
        Foushee,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        R.T. VANDERBILT HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Individually and as Successor in
        Interest to R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc.; VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC, f/k/a R.T.
        Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to International Talc
        Co.,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00071-M)

        Submitted: March 31, 2023                                        Decided: April 11, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Donald P. Blydenburgh, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, New York, New
        York; William M. Graham, WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A., Salisbury, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. Gerald Anderson Stein, II, Michael Duane Jones, HEDRICK GARDNER
        KINCHELOE & GAROFALO, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Pratik A. Shah, Lide E.
        Paterno, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Washington, D.C., for
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1074      Doc: 25         Filed: 04/11/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1074       Doc: 25         Filed: 04/11/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Belinda Lipscomb Foushee (“Plaintiff”) sued R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company

        and Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), claiming negligent failure to

        warn, breach of implied warranty, negligent design, gross negligence, and wrongful death.

        Plaintiff alleged that her daughter, Anneka Foushee (“Foushee”) contracted and ultimately

        died from mesothelioma after she was exposed to Defendants’ asbestos-containing

        product. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, and Plaintiff appeals.

        Finding no error, we affirm.

               We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment.

        Calloway v. Lokey, 948 F.3d 194, 201 (4th Cir. 2020). “A 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.’” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin.

        Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 568 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A

        dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Because this case involves state-law tort claims, we apply North Carolina law.

        Connor v. Covil Corp., 996 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 2021). To establish that Defendants

        are liable for asbestos exposure under North Carolina law, Plaintiff “must prove” that

        Defendants’ “alleged misconduct was a substantial factor causing” Foushee’s death. Id.

        To do so, Plaintiff must satisfy “the ‘frequency, regularity, and proximity’ test” set forth in

        Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162 (4th Cir. 1986). Connor, 996

        F.3d at 149. Under this test, “[t]o survive summary judgment on the issue of substantial

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1074      Doc: 25          Filed: 04/11/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        factor causation, . . . [P]laintiff must introduce ‘evidence of exposure to a specific product

        on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where [Foushee]

        actually worked.’” Id. (quoting Lohrmann, 782 F.2d at 1162-63).

               Our review of the record convinces us that Plaintiff did not make a sufficient

        showing of exposure to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      4