## Facts

- U.S. Navy veterans John DeVries and Kenneth McAfee served aboard Navy ships and worked around shipboard equipment, later developing cancer from asbestos exposure.
- Their widows and estates sued Air & Liquid Systems Corp. and other manufacturers that made pumps, blowers, and turbines used on the ships.
- The manufacturers often delivered the equipment as “bare metal,” meaning the equipment itself did not contain asbestos when sold.
- To function as intended in the shipboard setting, the equipment required asbestos-containing insulation and/or asbestos-containing replacement parts, which were added later (often by the Navy or other suppliers).
- Plaintiffs alleged the manufacturers were negligent for failing to warn about the asbestos dangers associated with the intended operation and maintenance of the integrated equipment (equipment plus required asbestos components).
- Defendants raised the “bare-metal defense,” arguing they owed no duty to warn about harms caused by asbestos products they did not make, sell, or distribute.
- The federal district court (sitting in admiralty) granted summary judgment to defendants on negligence and strict-liability theories based on a bright-line bare-metal rule.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit treated the strict-liability claims as abandoned, affirmed as to those claims, and reversed as to negligence—using a foreseeability approach to conclude the negligence claims could proceed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the proper maritime-law duty-to-warn rule when a manufacturer’s product requires later incorporation of a dangerous part made by another.

## Issues

1. In a maritime tort case, does a manufacturer have a duty to warn about dangers arising from asbestos-containing parts or insulation added by others after sale, when the manufacturer’s product requires such components to function as intended?
2. If a duty to warn may apply, what limiting standard governs when the manufacturer must warn about the danger of the integrated product rather than receiving complete protection under a bare-metal defense or facing open-ended foreseeability liability?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s judgment allowing the negligence failure-to-warn claims to go forward, but rejected the Third Circuit’s pure foreseeability test.
- The Court also rejected a categorical bare-metal defense that would bar liability whenever the manufacturer did not itself make, sell, or distribute the asbestos component.
- The Court adopted a middle-ground maritime rule: a manufacturer has a duty to warn when (1) its product requires incorporation of a part, (2) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (3) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that users will realize the danger.
- Applying that standard, the Court explained the duty-to-warn rule could cover the shipboard equipment at issue because the equipment was supplied for use in a manner that required asbestos insulation or asbestos parts, the danger of asbestos exposure was known or knowable, and ordinary sailors were not expected to recognize the risk without warnings.
- The strict-liability claims were not addressed on the merits because they were treated as abandoned in the court below; the Supreme Court’s decision focused on negligence under maritime law.

## Legal Principles

- Under maritime tort law, a manufacturer’s duty to warn follows the general duty-to-warn concept reflected in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388: reasonable care may require warnings when the supplier knows or has reason to know the product is dangerous for its expected use and users are unlikely to recognize the danger.
- A manufacturer may have a duty to warn about hazards arising from a third-party component when the manufacturer’s own product requires that component’s incorporation for the product to function as intended.
- Maritime law rejects two extremes in this setting: (1) liability based only on the fact that third-party use was foreseeable, and (2) a rule that bars liability whenever the defendant did not make or sell the hazardous component.
- The “requires incorporation” standard limits liability to situations where functional necessity (including expected replacement components) links the manufacturer’s product to the hazardous integrated use, and where the manufacturer has reason to know the integrated use is dangerous and users will not appreciate the danger.

## Conclusion

Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries holds that, in maritime negligence cases, an equipment manufacturer can owe a duty to warn about asbestos dangers posed by an integrated product even when the asbestos parts were made or supplied by others, but only when the manufacturer’s product required the asbestos component, the manufacturer knew or had reason to know the integrated product was likely dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer had no reason to think users would recognize the danger.


Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, 139 S.Ct. 986, 203 L.Ed.2d 373 (2019)