Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California

Plaintiffs filed suit against multiple Defendants, including Lockheed Martin Corporation, due to decedent Alice Faulk’s asbestos exposure, resulting in a diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma, which caused her to pass away in 2022.

Among other things, plaintiffs claim Ms. Faulk was exposed to take-home asbestos because her father, Eleaquim Rene Alvarez, was employed as a career aerospace worker specializing in airframe and structural work/structural assembly at Lockheed’s facility from 1962 to 1971. Ms. Faulk’s older sister appeared for a deposition. Per this deposition testimony, Ms. Faulk resided at the family home from 1962 to 1988. Mr. Alvarez was employed by Lockheed for a portion of this timeframe.

Mr. Alvarez would bring his work clothes home, including his shop apron and socks, which were soiled and dusty. However, plaintiffs were not able to locate a witness who remembered the specifics of Mr. Alvarez’s time at Lockheed or who could speak to the exact nature of his work. Plaintiffs ultimately propounded expert reports authored by Dr. Michael Ellenbecker, Dr. William Longo, and Dr. Barry Horn. According to these expert reports, asbestos was widely used throughout aircraft manufacturing during the period of Mr. Alvarez’s employment. Dr. Longo further opined that assemblers – similar to Mr. Alvarez’s employment with Lockheed – were among the workers likely to encounter airborne asbestos fibers.

Lockheed ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment upon the conclusion of discovery. Lockheed’s motion for summary judgment argued plaintiffs cannot establish two essential components of their asbestos take-home claims, including causation: (1) – that decedent’s father, Mr. Alvarez, was actually exposed to asbestos attributable to Lockheed during his employment there; and (2) – that any such exposure was a substantial factor in causing decedent’s eventual development of pleural mesothelioma.

Plaintiffs opposed Lockheed’s dispositive motion. Oral argument was subsequently conducted before the Federal Court in California.

The court concluded that plaintiffs did not offer sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Mr. Alvarez was exposed to asbestos from his employment at Lockheed’s facility. Rather, plaintiff offered only circumstantial evidence of exposure for which Lockheed is responsible. Specifically, plaintiff relied on Mr. Alvarez’s job title, the fact that he worked at Lockheed’s facility for nearly a decade, and a study reflecting some employees at the Lockheed facility were estimated to have worked with asbestos.

The plaintiffs, in essence, sought an inference of exposure from primarily a job title, generalized industry usage, and a study that is not specific to Mr. Alvarez’s specific employment with Lockheed. This evidence, at most, established a “possibility” of exposure – i.e., that “given the relevant time period” and Mr. Alvarez’s worksite, then “at some point [Mr. Alvarez] might have worked” on projects that exposed him to asbestos.

Further, the court also found that plaintiffs’ expert testimony did not bridge this evidentiary gap because it is based on assumptions not supported by the underlying evidence. The court ultimately found this combination of evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable inference of exposure under the law. In view of the above, the court held plaintiffs did not create a triable issue as to whether Mr. Albarez was exposed to asbestos while employed with Lockheed. Accordingly, the court granted Lockheed’s motion for summary judgment.

Read the full decision here.