Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPPLY CHAIN LIABILITY ISSUES—ASBESTOS—E.D. Pa.: Product liability claims brought against manufacturers and suppliers dismissed in worker’s asbestos exposure suit, (Aug 25, 2025)

By Kerry McInerney, J.D.

Under Pennsylvania law, product identification is the prerequisite threshold question in sustaining an asbestos-related claim.

In an action brought against manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products by a man who developed mesothelioma due to his alleged workplace exposure to various asbestos-containing products, a federal district court in Pennsylvania granted the companies’ summary judgment motions. The deceased’s claims against Foster Wheeler were barred entirely by the Pennsylvania Statute of Repose, and the executor of the deceased worker did not establish that the worker was exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by the other companies with the necessary regularity, frequency, and proximity to sustain a claim (Wood v. Eaton Corp., No. 22-2564 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2025)).

Background. A former worker claimed that he was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products from 1972–1990 while working for the U.S. Navy, Lehigh University, and Bethlehem Steel Company. After receiving a mesothelioma diagnosis in 2021, he filed suit asserting strict product liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and wrongful death claims against various companies that manufactured, sold, distributed, and supplied asbestos-containing products or raw asbestos materials. The former worker died in 2024, and his executor became the plaintiff in this suit. The decedent was employed as a boiler operator by Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, from 1976-1970 where he allegedly was exposed to asbestos. Additionally, he was a boiler operator, pump house operator, and mechanical helper in the Steam, Water, and Air Department of The Bethlehem Steel Company in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, from 1979 through 1998 where he was also allegedly exposed to asbestos.

The executor alleged specifically that Eaton Corporation sold asbestos-containing brake linings that were used on cranes while the deceased worked at Bethlehem Steel and on the USS Semmes and that the decedent was exposed to asbestos contained in boilers that were installed at Bethlehem Steel by Foster Wheeler. The executor asserted that the decedent was exposed to asbestos through various products that were supplied by Hajoca Corporation while the decedent worked at Bethlehem Steel and that the decedent was exposed to asbestos through insulation, gaskets, packing, and rope supplied by W.W. Grainger that were used at Bethlehem Steel.

The companies he sued, Eaton Corporation, Foster Wheeler LLC, Hajoca Corporation, and W.W. Grainger, filed motions for summary judgment. The court noted that the threshold question in an asbestos case is product identification. Thus, a plaintiff must adequately identify the defendant and the product that was alleged to have caused the asbestos-related injury or the claims fail (since they are all asbestos-related). In addition to this, a plaintiff “must further establish that they worked with a certain defendant’s product with the necessary frequency and regularity, and in close enough proximity to the product, to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether that specific product was a substantial factor (and thus the proximate cause) of plaintiff’s asbestos related condition.”

Foster Wheeler. Foster Wheeler contended that the deceased worker’s claims against it were barred entirely by the Pennsylvania Statute of Repose. According to the court, “the relevant statute of repose bars claims filed twelve years after the completion of an improvement to real property.” The court noted that Foster Wheeler installed ten waste-heat boilers for Bethlehem Steel in the 1930s, which was far greater than the statutory twelve years. The next question was whether the boilers manufactured by Foster Wheeler would be considered an improvement to real property. The court determined that they were.

The executor had argued that the company’s self-serving affidavits, which the executor claimed were the basis for the facts regarding the boilers, could not be used as a basis for summary judgment. The court replied that because the standard on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact, where the non-moving party (i.e., the executor of the deceased worker) has not provided any other evidence disproving that fact, summary judgment must be granted. Thus, because the executor did not point to anywhere on the record that indicated that the company’s facts were false, there was no genuine dispute of material fact.

The court found that the sheer size of the boilers in the present case, along with their essential purpose in powering the Bethlehem Steel plant, supported the conclusion that these boilers were an improvement to real property. The record showed that Foster Wheeler designed these enormous boilers for Bethlehem Steel, that the boilers were necessary components of the functionality of the powering of the steel plant, and that they were similar to those that previous courts have determined qualified as improvements to real property. For these reasons, the Statute of Repose barred any claims against Foster Wheeler for asbestos-related injuries caused by the boilers.

Grainger. The court observed that the deceased worker’s alleged exposure to Grainger-supplied products stemmed from his time of employment at Bethlehem Steel when he retrieved materials from the company and delivered them back to Bethlehem Steel. Grainger is a supplier of products, not a manufacturer of products.

The company argued that the executor could not establish that the deceased worker was exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by the company with the necessary regularity, frequency, and proximity to sustain a claim. The court agreed that the executor had not adequately identified Grainger-supplied asbestos-containing products as those that the deceased worker was frequently exposed to. The deceased worker testified during his deposition that he was a runner who was told to go and pick up things and that he usually did not have any duty to unpack these boxes unless he had to deliver certain parts to a boiler house. In the nearly twenty years that the deceased worker was employed at Bethlehem Steel, he only recalled picking up Grainger supplies “no more than a dozen” times, and he admitted that without something in the box “sticking out,” there was no way to know who was the supplier of the products used at the plant. The court concluded that, because of this, the executor had not shown that the products supplied by Grainger were a substantial factor in causing the worker’s illness. Thus, the executor had failed to meet the threshold question—product identification. According to the court, the record reflected that if there was exposure to asbestos-related products, which was speculative, the exposure was infrequent at best.

Hajoca. The executor asserted two ways for how the deceased worker was exposed to Hajoca products. First, he served as a runner who would retrieve materials from the Hajoca supply house and then deliver them back to Bethlehem Steel. Second, there were materials supplied by Hajoca to Bethlehem Steel used in the line of his work that contained asbestos.

As a runner, the worker testified that he only picked those company products up himself around twelve times in the almost twenty years that he worked at Bethlehem Steel. Similar to the court’s conclusion for Grainger, the court found that the reported exposure to Hajoca asbestos-containing products did not demonstrate enough frequency to support the claims against Hajoca. The executor had alleged that the worker “‘definitely’ inhaled the asbestos dust generated by Hajoca-supplied asbestos-containing boiler replacement parts.” The court noted that, looking to the relevant deposition excerpts, the deceased worker did not mention at any point that he had inhaled asbestos contained in Hajoca-specific supplied materials. In fact, he stated the opposite, according to the court. Because the worker had failed to identify Hajoca-supplied products as those that he was exposed to, the executor could not support a claim against the company.

Eaton. The court noted that Eaton Corporation is the successor to Cutler-Hammer. As a result, the product identification issues will relate to Cutler-Hammer’s products and not those of Eaton Corporation. The court observed that, upon a review of the deceased worker’s relevant deposition transcripts, there was no mention of Cutler-Hammer products. Instead, the executor relied on the testimony of two other Bethlehem Steel employees to support his allegation that Cutler-Hammer was the manufacturer of crane brakes used at Bethlehem Steel. The court found that the executor did not put forth in pleadings or oral argument a basis for the court to admit and consider the statements of the other workers. Thus, the statements by the other workers were inadmissible hearsay, could not be considered by the court, and, therefore, were excluded. According to the court, the entire record, having only minimal references to Cutler-Hammer and the deceased worker’s exposure to crane brakes, was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Thus, the company’s summary judgment motion was granted.

The case is No. 22-2564.

Judge: Hodge, K.

Attorneys: Jason B. Duncan (Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.) for Valerie Wood and Greg Vollman. Ingrid H. Graff (Marshall Dennehey, P.C.) for Eaton Corp. and Cooper Industries LLC. Leah A. Lewis (Reilly, McDevitt & Henrich, P.C.) for Foster Wheeler LLC f/k/a Foster Wheeler Corp. Christina A Gonzales (Marshall Dennehey, P.C.) for Hajoca Corp. W. Matthew Reber (Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP) for FMC Corp. and W.W. Grainger.

Companies: Eaton Corp.; Cooper Industries LLC; Foster Wheeler LLC f/k/a Foster Wheeler Corp.; Hajoca Corp.; FMC Corp.

Cases: CourtDecisions SCLIssuesNews AsbestosNews SofLReposeNews PennsylvaniaNews