Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, CAUSATION—ASBESTOS—E.D. Cal.: Court allows mesothelioma suit against GE to proceed, rejecting most defenses, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Brittany DiBiaggio, J.D.

General Electric failed to obtain summary judgment on asbestos claims brought by the family of a deceased maritime worker, with the court finding triable issues on causation, duty to warn, and available defenses.

A federal district court in California denied in large part General Electric’s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos exposure case, holding that the claimants presented sufficient evidence that exposure to asbestos from GE turbines substantially contributed to the decedent’s mesothelioma. The court also rejected GE’s arguments that maritime law barred consortium and punitive damages, and it denied summary judgment on GE’s government contractor and sophisticated user defenses. However, the court did grant limited relief by striking certain expert reports and narrowing some defenses (Payne v. General Electric Co., No. 2:20-cv-01198-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025)).

Background. The decedent attended the California Maritime Academy between 1972 and 1975 and served aboard the Golden Bear II, originally constructed as the S.S. Del Orleans in 1940 under a U.S. Maritime Commission contract. The vessel carried a GE steam turbine. The claimants alleged the decedent was exposed to asbestos insulation and gaskets surrounding the turbine during a 1975 inspection and that this exposure caused his mesothelioma and eventual death. His family sued GE and others under maritime and California law, asserting negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and consortium. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

Causation under maritime law. Maritime law required the claimants to prove that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from a GE product and that the exposure was a substantial factor in his illness.

GE argued the claimants could not prove actual exposure to asbestos from its turbine or that any exposure was substantial enough to cause the illness. The court disagreed. During depositions, the decedent testified that he witnessed turbine inspections where insulation and gaskets were removed, generating visible dust. A classmate corroborated this account, and photographs taken by the cadet showed asbestos insulation around the turbine. An abatement expert confirmed that the insulation in the photographs was asbestos. The court found this evidence exceeded mere speculation and created a triable issue on exposure.

As to whether exposure constituted a substantial factor, the record showed the decedent spent hours near the turbine during multi-day inspections and regularly worked in asbestos dust. Experts testified that turbine maintenance released asbestos fibers above background levels. The court concluded that this evidence, viewed in the claimants’ favor, could permit a jury to find that asbestos from GE’s turbine substantially contributed to the decedent’s mesothelioma.

GE further contended that no warning could have altered the decedent’s behavior. The claimants countered that GE could have provided warnings in instruction manuals, through its ongoing relationship with MARAD and the Maritime Academy, or directly during turbine inspections. The decedent testified that he would have taken such warnings seriously and worn protective equipment. The court found this evidence raised a question for the jury as to whether a warning might have prevented his injuries.

Causation under California law. The claimants also brought negligence and strict liability claims under California law. California law requires proof of exposure and causation similar to maritime law, but applies state tort standards. The court held that the same evidence of the decedent’s proximity to asbestos dust, corroborated by witnesses and expert testimony, created genuine disputes of material fact under California law as well.

Accordingly, the court denied GE’s motion for summary judgment on causation under both maritime and California law.

Duty to warn. GE invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, which recognizes a duty to warn when a product requires incorporation of a hazardous component, the manufacturer knows or should know that the integrated product is dangerous, and users are unlikely to appreciate the danger. (Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, 586 U.S. at 457 (2019)). The court found triable issues of fact on all three prongs. Evidence supported that the turbines required asbestos insulation, that GE knew or should have known by the 1970s that asbestos removal was hazardous, and that GE representatives observed cadets working without precautions. Thus, the court denied GE’s motion for summary judgment on its duty to warn under DeVries.

Damages. GE further sought dismissal of the consortium and punitive damages claims. The court granted summary judgment on the consortium claim, holding that maritime law does not allow such recovery, preempting California law. On punitive damages, however, the court sided with the claimants. Relying on Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Exxon Valdez, the court found punitive damages historically available in maritime negligence cases (Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009)); (In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d at 1225). It rejected GE’s argument that Townsend applied only to maintenance and cure claims and noted that deterrence supported their availability.

Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on punitive damages but granted summary judgment against the consortium claim.

Defenses. The court also addressed several defenses raised by GE and Redco. On the government contractor defense, the court found factual disputes over whether the Navy approved precise specifications, whether GE conformed to them, and whether GE warned of asbestos hazards. It denied the claimants’ request to strike the defense.

On the sophisticated user defense, GE withdrew, but Redco maintained the decedent was aware of asbestos dangers based on testimony from classmates and the decedent himself. The court held the record created a triable issue and denied the claimants' motion as to Redco.

On the sophisticated purchaser defense, which shields a manufacturer that reasonably relies on intermediaries such as the Navy or the Academy to warn workers, the court ruled for the claimants. Even under the narrower approach taken in Cabasug v. Crane Co., Redco failed to show it warned intermediaries or reasonably believed they would warn cadets (Cabasug v. Crane Co., 988 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1219 (D. Haw. 2013)).

Finally, on the superseding cause defense, the court rejected GE’s argument that the Academy’s failure to warn was an unforeseeable intervening act. Applying both maritime and California law, the court concluded the omissions were foreseeable, especially since a GE representative observed students working without precautions.

The court denied summary judgment on causation, duty to warn, and punitive damages, struck the superseding cause and sophisticated purchaser defenses, and dismissed the consortium claim. The government contractor and sophisticated user defenses remain for trial, leaving GE to face a jury on the central issues of asbestos exposure and liability.

The case is No. 2:20-cv-01198-TLN-AC.

Judge: Nunley, T.

Attorneys: Scott L. Frost (Frost Law Firm, PC) for Dennis C. Payne, Susan Payne, Emily Payne and Samuel Payne. Charles Todd Sheldon (Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, LLP) for General Electric Co. Marisa R. Chaves (Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP) for York International Corp., Goulds Pumps, Inc. and Goulds Pumps, LLC. Florence A. McClain (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) for SB Decking, Inc. f/k/a Selsby Battersby & Co. Daniel M. Glassman (Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for Redco Corp. f/k/a Crane, Co.

Companies: General Electric Co.; York International Corp.; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Goulds Pumps, LLC; SB Decking, Inc. f/k/a Selsby Battersby & Co.; Redco Corp. f/k/a Crane, Co.

MainStory: TopStory CausationNews AsbestosNews WarningsNews DamagesNews DefensesLiabilityNews CaliforniaNews