Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—ASBESTOS—R.I. Super.: Claims against heater and water pump maker move forward in part in estate’s asbestos exposure suit, (Sep 4, 2025)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The estate’s product liability claims failed because the worker’s employer was a sophisticated user aware of the dangers of asbestos and did not require any warning from the manufacturer.

In an action brought against the designer of asbestos-containing heaters and water pumps by the wife of a worker who allegedly died due to injuries caused by his workplace exposure to asbestos, the Rhode Island Superior Court partly granted the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment. The wife’s design and installation related tort claims were dismissed since the products at issue were “permanent improvements” and the designer was a protected class under Massachusetts’ statute of repose. However, the claims arising out of the manufacturer’s contractual duties survived because its contract to perform later repairs to improvements gave rise to a duty outside of the statute of repose (Angelini v. 3M Co., No. PC-2017-3179 (R.I. Super. Aug. 27, 2025)).

Background. A man worked for several power companies during the course of his career. From the 1970s until his retirement in 1998, he worked in mechanical maintenance at Brayton Point, operated by New England Power Company (employer). The employer contracted with Foster Wheeler, LLC (Foster or manufacturer) for designing seven feedwater heaters and two water pumps for the facility, delivered in 1967 and 1972, respectively. Both products incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets and insulation. The manufacturer periodically sent technical representatives to facilitate or oversee repairs and supplied replacement parts, also containing asbestos, along with recommendations to maintain “like-for-like” asbestos-containing gaskets in all future maintenance. The worker was allegedly exposed to asbestos while performing repair and replacement work, which resulted in his bodily injuries and subsequent death. His wife/estate brought suit against several entities including Foster for product liability and loss of consortium. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment.

Applicable law. The parties agreed that Massachusetts’ statute of repose and sophisticated user doctrine applied to this matter. Rhode Island does not apply the law of the chosen state if it contravenes fundamental public policy or if the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction. Commerce Park Realty, LLC v. HR2-A Corp., 253 A.3d 1258, 1270 (R.I. 2021). The court first considered whether there was a conflict between the laws of the two states that would necessitate a choice of law analysis. Massachusetts’ statute of repose bars applicable actions after six years, whereas a similar Rhode Island statute bars actions after ten years and also extends protection beyond designers or administrators of improvements to those who supply materials for such improvements. Foster Wheeler was protected under both statutes as a designer and could escape liability because the subject improvements were designed by it several decades before this suit began, meaning that there was no conflict on this ground. However, there was a conflict of law regarding the sophisticated user doctrine since Rhode Island does not recognize this doctrine. The court considered whether it was a “false conflict”—if only one state was interested in the application of its law. Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Ltd., 605 F.2d, 1, 19 n.26 (1st Cir. 1979).

The court analyzed five policy considerations laid down in Harodite Industries, Inc. v. Warren Electric Corp., 24 A.3d 514, 534 (R.I. 2011) to determine where jurisdiction was most significantly related: (1) predictability of results – both parties could anticipate Massachusetts’ law applying since the exposure occurred from the man’s employment in Massachusetts and Foster designed products for a Massachusetts employer; (2) maintenance of interstate order – Rhode Island had no governmental interest in forgoing or applying a sophisticated user defense to benefit an out-of-state resident; (3) advancement of the forum’s governmental interests – Massachusetts had an interest in the defense being applied to protect commerce in its state; (4) simplification of the judicial task – this court had several Massachusetts precedents to guide it; and (5) application of the better rule of law – a finder of fact might question why New England Power was not being held responsible for any failure to warn the worker. These factors weighed in favor of Massachusetts, just like the four tort factors: (1) the place of injury/exposure; (2) the conduct giving rise to the injury, which was maintenance work performed at Brayton Point; (3) the parties’ residence, since the estate was a resident of Massachusetts; and (4) the parties’ relationship, which centered in Massachusetts where New England Power operated. As such, Massachusetts’ substantive law controlled this action.

Statute of repose. Foster Wheeler argued that any tort claims relating to the initial design, planning, or installation of the feedwater heaters and water pumps were barred by Massachusetts’ statute of repose (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260 § 2B), which prohibits any tort action arising out of a deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction, or general administration of an “improvement to real property” more than six years after the earlier of the improvement’s opening to use or substantial completion and possession by the owner. The heaters (delivered in 1967) and pumps (delivered in 1972), measuring up to 47 feet and weighing over 100,000 pounds, had been designed and installed as permanent, fixed components essential to the Brayton Point plant’s function as a powerhouse. The estate did not provide any evidence suggesting that the products were not permanent improvements but argued that the asbestos-containing materials in them could not be considered improvements, as held in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. W.R. Grace & Company-Conn., 24 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1994). But the cited case involved the interpretation of Illinois’ statute of repose and the defendant there was a product supplier, not designer. Moreover, the Massachusetts Superior Court has held that asbestos involved in the design of an improvement is covered by the statute of repose, Sylvestre v. New England Insulation Co., No. MICV201507031 (Mass. Supp. Apr. 27, 2017), and this court could not second guess the application of Massachusetts law based on an extra-jurisdictional decision. As such, the wife’s tort claims relating to the products’ design or installation were time-barred under this statute.

Sophisticated user doctrine. Beyond design and installation, the estate pursued failure-to-warn claims related to Foster Wheeler’s later role in supplying asbestos-containing replacement gaskets and parts for the heaters and pumps without warning of the asbestos content. The estate added that the subject exposure occurred during “ordinary repairs” outside the statute of repose since the gaskets replaced the old ones, while Foster responded by asserting the “sophisticated user doctrine” as a defense. The doctrine, as set out in Carrel v. National Cord & Braid Corp., 852 N.E.2d 100, 108 (Mass. 2006), provides that a manufacturer is not liable for failing to warn of a product’s dangers where the end user knows or reasonably should know of the hazards. The wife maintained that the worker—not the facility—should be deemed the “end user,” since he allegedly lacked contemporaneous understanding of asbestos dangers and relied entirely on supplied warnings, whereas Foster Wheeler argued that New England Power was the end user as it was the institutional employer and operator ordering, maintaining, and benefiting from the equipment. The court clarified that the end user was the employer as per several precedents like Taylor v. AIRCO, Inc., 503 F. Supp. 2d 432, 443-44 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 2007), especially since New England Power contracted for the products to be used in its facilities to produce electricity for its benefit. The fact that the employer had safety protocols in place to deal with maintaining and removing asbestos in line with OSHA standards since 1973 reflected that it was well aware of the danger, eliminating the need for a warning. Contrary to the estate’s submission, the user’s knowledge was not required to far exceed that of the defendant. Hoffman v. Houghton Chemical Corp., 751 N.E.2d 848, 854 (Mass. 2001). As such, the employer was a sophisticated user, and the manufacturer was entitled to judgment on any product liability claims.

Contractual duty. However, the court distinguished Foster Wheeler’s role as a mere designer/supplier from its contractual commitments to perform supervision, training, and inspection when specifically requested by New England Power for subsequent repairs. Evidence, including the testimony of the decedent’s coworker, showed that Foster Wheeler had sent technical representatives to Brayton Point—on at least five documented occasions (1968, 1969, 1975, 1979, and 1986)—to provide guidance for maintenance or repairs of the feedwater heaters and pumps, which released hazardous dust. As held in Parent v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 556 N.E.2d 1009, 1011 (Mass. 1990), a defendant’s contract to perform later repairs to improvements gave rise to a duty outside of the statute of repose due to the contractual obligations of those repairs and its duty to third persons “who are foreseeably exposed to danger and injured as a result of its negligent failure to carry out that obligation.” The absence of a memorialized written contract does not equate to there being no contract, especially where the employer paid for the listed services. It was reasonably foreseeable to Foster that the worker would be exposed to asbestos if not adequately warned. Thus, judgment was denied on claims arising from the contractual duties.

The case is No. PC-2017-3179.

Judge: Gibney, A.

Attorneys: Vincent L. Greene IV (Motley Rice LLC) for Elise M. Angelini. John R. Felice (Clyde & Co LLP) for 3M Co. f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing and Foster Wheeler, LLC.

Companies: 3M Co. f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing; Foster Wheeler, LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions DefensesLiabilityNews SofLReposeNews AsbestosNews WarningsNews DesignManufacturingNews MassachusettsNews RhodeIslandNews