Quantcast

Asbestos lawyers' theory rebuffed by Washington court in mesothelioma case

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Asbestos lawyers' theory rebuffed by Washington court in mesothelioma case

State Court
Dunnweston

Weston Dunn of Shook Hardy worked on an amicus brief

TACOMA, Wash. (Legal Newsline) – A Washington court has turned away arguments from asbestos lawyers that claimed a six-year statute of limitations didn’t apply to their client’s case against companies involved in the construction of Atlantic Richfield’s Cherry Point petroleum refinery.

The Court of Appeals Division II ruled Nov. 24 for Brand Insulations and Parsons Government Services in the case of Edmond Brown, a man who died from mesothelioma he fell ill with more than 45 years after working at the plant.

A six-year statute of repose applied to the claims because they didn’t arise from the sale of asbestos-containing insulation and both companies were both performing an “improvement upon real property” when the alleged exposure occurred.

“Parsons actually constructed the improvement upon real property – the Cherry Point refinery,” Judge Bradley Maxa wrote.

Parsons was the contractor hired to build the plant, and Brand was picked to install the insulation, which contained asbestos.

State law imposes a six-year timeframe for asbestos claims occurring as a result of the “improvement of real property,” the lawyers for Brown’s family argued the exposure was as a result of the sale of the insulation rather than construction activities.

Four facts doomed this argument though: Construction of the refinery was an improvement on the property, Parsons was the general contractor for the entire project, Brand was a subcontractor and the claims arose from Brand’s construction work.

The ruling affirmed summary judgment at the trial level for the two companies.

“(T)he insulation work occurred during and as part of the original construction of the improvement upon real property,” Maxa wrote. Brand’s work on the project ended before substantial completion of the refinery…

“Brand did not merely install a new system within an existing real property improvement.”

Representing the plaintiff are Weinstein Caggiano of Seattle, Maune Raichle of Portland, Ore., and Kelly Lynn Battley of Portland. The firms representing Brand and Parsons are Tanenbaum Keale, Williams Kastner & Gibbs and Carney Badley Spellman.

Shook Hardy & Bacon got involved on behalf of Associated General Contractors of Washington and other parties that joined for an amicus brief in support of the defendants. 

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News