## Facts

- John Promaulayko worked at Ruberoid Corporation’s South Bound Brook plant from 1934 to 1978 and developed asbestosis from workplace exposure.
- Ruberoid bought asbestos from multiple suppliers, including Leonard J. Buck, Inc. (Buck), a distributor.
- Buck purchased 96.5 tons of Soviet asbestos from Amtorg Trading Corporation (Amtorg), an upstream intermediary involved in marketing Soviet asbestos in the United States.
- The Soviet asbestos was shipped from the Soviet Union in 100-pound bags without warnings about asbestos hazards or asbestosis.
- Neither Buck nor Amtorg physically possessed the asbestos; it was shipped directly to Ruberoid.
- In the products-liability trial, the jury found defendants strictly liable and found that all Soviet asbestos causing the injury was supplied through Amtorg; fault was allocated 25% to Buck, 10% to Amtorg, and 65% to another supplier.
- The jury rejected the wrongful death claim but awarded $60,000 to the estate and $40,000 to the spouse on a per quod claim.
- Buck asserted a cross-claim seeking indemnification from Amtorg for liability attributable to the Soviet asbestos.

## Issues

1. Whether an upstream, intermediate distributor in a strict products-liability chain may be required to indemnify a downstream distributor when both are strictly liable for the same defective product.
2. Whether indemnity in strict products liability is limited to claims against the original manufacturer, rather than against upstream intermediaries.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s order granting Buck indemnification from Amtorg.
- The court held that indemnity is not categorically limited to manufacturer-to-distributor relationships; an intermediate distributor may owe indemnity to a downstream distributor.
- On these facts, Buck’s liability was treated as secondary or derivative relative to Amtorg’s more primary responsibility for placing the Soviet asbestos into the U.S. market.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability may apply to all commercial entities in the chain of distribution, but equitable indemnity may shift the ultimate loss among defendants.
- Contribution apportions loss among joint tortfeasors; indemnity allows full reimbursement when the indemnitee’s liability is secondary, derivative, or vicarious compared to the indemnitor’s primary responsibility.
- Indemnity may be imposed on an upstream distributor or intermediary (even if not the manufacturer) when that party is functionally closer to the source of the defect and more responsible for placing the defective product into commerce.
- Courts assess indemnity functionally, considering relative roles in marketing and distribution, capacity to influence warnings and safety information, and ability to spread or control risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that a downstream distributor strictly liable for distributing asbestos without adequate warnings could obtain full indemnification from an upstream intermediate distributor when, as between them, the upstream intermediary had the more primary responsibility for placing the defective product into the stream of commerce.


Promaulayko v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 562 A.2d 202 (N.J. 1989)