Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

August 5, 2019

ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          ROBERT J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s (“SMP”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 261). The Court is familiar with the records and files herein and all documents filed in support of and in opposition to the motion.

         For the reasons stated below, SMP's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This is an asbestos case. Dkt. 168. The above-entitled action was commenced in Pierce County Superior Court of October 27, 2017. Dkt. 1-1, at 6. Notice of removal from the state court was filed with this Court on July 3, 2018. Dkt. 1-1.

         In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Rudie Klopman-Baerselman (“Decedent”) was exposed to asbestos-containing products designed, manufactured, and sold by SMP, causing Decedent injuries for which SMP is liable. Dkt. 168. Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma on approximately July 11, 2017, and died on November 25, 2017.

         The complaint provides that “Decedent [] was an employee of Royal Dutch Lloyd, Rotterdam Lloyd and worked as a merchant mariner assigned to several vessels. While performing his duties as a boiler oilman/stoker from approximately 1955 through 1959, Decedent [] was exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing materials and products while aboard the vessels.” Dkt. 168, at 6. The complaint continues, “Decedent [] performed all maintenance work on his vehicles specifically friction work. Decedent [] performed maintenance to his vehicles, during the approximate years 1966 through 1997. Decedent [] was exposed to asbestos, asbestos materials and products while performing vehicle maintenance.” Dkt. 168, at 6.

         “Plaintiff claims liability based upon the theories of product liability (RCW 7.72 et seq.); negligence; conspiracy; strict product liability under Section 402A and 402B of the Restatement of Torts; premises liability; and any other applicable theory of liability.” Dkt. 168, at 6.

         On July 11, 2019, SMP filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that:

(1) Plaintiff is unable to identify any evidence, admissible or otherwise, that the Decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured or produced by SMP.
(2) Plaintiff is unable to identify any evidence, admissible or otherwise, that the Decedent suffered a substantial exposure to asbestos associated with any asbestos-containing products manufactured or produced by SMP.
(3) Plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to establish genuine issues of material fact with respect to Plaintiff's claims of negligence, conspiracy, strict liability under Section 402A and 402B of the Restatements of Torts, and premises liability.

Dkt. 261.

         Plaintiff filed nothing in opposition to SMP's Motion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.