WILMINGTON, Del. (Legal Newsline) – Pointing out a spelling error did not work for an asbestos defendant facing a Delaware lawsuit but other arguments earned it summary judgment.
Judge Meghan Adams of the Delaware Superior Court on Aug. 31 granted the motion of Hennessy Industries, the successor-in-interest of AMMCO Tools. The company attacked the late plaintiff Raymond Petit’s identification of their product when he spelled it “AAMCO” – an auto repair company that spelled out its letters in a memorable way during advertisements.
“Double A (honk-honk) M-C-O,” those commercials went.
The double-A was in Petit’s mind instead of AMMCO’s double-M when he was asked to identify using the company’s machines, on which he turned brake drums while working in auto shops during the 1980s.
When he sanded the “stuff” in the drums, asbestos was released, his lawsuit said. AMMCO also claimed the machine was a single unit rather than two separate pieces.
“Plaintiff provided a physical description of the AMMCO machines and described his use of the machines throughout his testimony,” Judge Adams wrote.
“Plaintiff also submitted an AMMCO image and description of a machine that matches Plaintiff’s descriptions, corroborating his testimony regarding the single-unit machines. Plaintiff sufficiently identified working with AMMCO arcing and lathe machines.”
But Petit, who died from mesothelioma, could not prove he worked with asbestos-containing products while he used that machine, which contained no asbestos itself.
“Plaintiff testified generally that he used Bendix brake products, but was unable to identify particular brands of drums as he worked because he was not the person removing the drums from the vehicles,” Adams wrote.
“Plaintiff did not know, but ‘assumed,’ that the dust from the drums contained asbestos.”