United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HENRY COMPANY LLC’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
J. BRYAN United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Henry Company
LLC’s (“Henry”) Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 315) and Defendant Henry’s Motion to Strike (Dkt.
349). The Court is familiar with the record and files herein
and has reviewed the motions and materials filed in support
of and in opposition thereto. Oral argument is unnecessary to
decide these motions.
reasons set forth below, Henry’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 315) should be granted. The Court need not
consider Henry’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 349).
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.
operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Rudie
Klopman-Baerselman (“Decedent”) was exposed to
asbestos-containing products produced by Henry, causing
Decedent injuries for which Henry is liable. Dkt. 168.
Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma on approximately
July 11, 2017, and died on November 25, 2017. Dkt. 168, at 4.
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.
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.
filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that:
(1) Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence that
Decedent’s claims were caused by Henry’s
(2) Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence in support of
his broad claims of negligence, conspiracy, strict liability
under Section 402A and 402B of the Restatements of Torts,
filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant Henry Company
LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 342. Plaintiff
argues, in part, that it has provided ample evidence of
exposure to Henry’s asbestos-containing products via,
in part, the testimony of lay witnesses. Dkt. 342, at
filed a Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment
and Motion to Strike. Dkt. 349. Henry argues that Plaintiff
has provided no testimony or other evidence that Decedent
used an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Henry.
Dkt. 349. Henry moves to strike ...