## Facts

- Clyde Fischer worked as an insulator at Buckeye Ordnance Works, an industrial facility owned by the United States Department of Defense (DOD).
- The facility manufactured various industrial products, including turbines.
- In 1942, insulation containing asbestos was packaged and delivered to the facility at the DOD’s request through a third party.
- At the DOD’s direction, the asbestos-containing insulation was installed in turbines at the facility.
- In 1949, Allied Signal Corporation obtained the facility from the DOD.
- After Allied Signal acquired the site, Solvay Process Co. refurbished and rebuilt the turbines at the facility.
- During that refurbishment, the earlier insulation was completely removed and replaced.
- In or around 1955, Fischer had contact at the facility with turbines manufactured by Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (Elliott).
- Fischer later developed an asbestos-related illness.
- In 1991, Fischer sued 24 companies based on asbestos exposure; certain companies that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products settled.
- Fischer died in 2004.
- Representatives of Fischer’s estate later sued 25 additional companies, including Elliott, alleging Fischer was exposed to asbestos-containing products made or supplied by those defendants (including turbines).
- Elliott moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence linking Fischer’s illness to asbestos from an Elliott turbine or other Elliott product.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that Fischer was exposed to asbestos from an asbestos-containing product attributable to Elliott.
2. Whether Elliott was entitled to summary judgment where the record did not show product-specific exposure and causation connecting Fischer’s asbestos-related illness to Elliott.

## Decision

- The court granted Elliott’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court ruled that the estate failed to produce evidence that Fischer was exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured or supplied by Elliott.
- The court held that evidence of asbestos use at Buckeye Ordnance Works and Fischer’s general contact with turbines did not, without product identification tying asbestos exposure to Elliott, create a triable causation question against Elliott.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; once the movant points to an evidentiary gap on an essential element, the nonmovant must respond with specific facts showing a triable issue.
- In asbestos product-liability claims, the plaintiff must identify the defendant’s asbestos-containing product as a source of exposure and present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could link that exposure to the claimed disease.
- Proof that asbestos was present somewhere at a worksite, or that the plaintiff worked around equipment of a given type, is not enough without evidence connecting the exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing product.
- Where the record indicates that earlier asbestos insulation was removed and replaced during later refurbishment by others, a plaintiff must still produce evidence tying the plaintiff’s later exposure to asbestos associated with the defendant, rather than to prior or replacement materials.

## Conclusion

In Fischer Estate v. Allied Chem. Co., the Ohio Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to Elliott because the estate did not produce product-specific evidence that Fischer inhaled asbestos from an Elliott turbine or other Elliott-supplied asbestos-containing material, leaving no triable issue on exposure and causation as to Elliott.


Fischer Estate v. Allied Chem. Co., 2008 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 459 (2008)