In this case, Goulds Pumps moved for summary judgment based, in part, on the bare metal defense, namely “that South Carolina would not impose on Goulds a duty to warn consumers of the dangers of asbestos-containing component parts used in connection with its pumps.” The district court originally recognized the bare metal defense, holding that “the South Carolina Supreme Court would likely adopt the bare metal defense.” The plaintiff then moved for reconsideration, relying on recently decided similar cases where the courts reached the opposite conclusion. The district court concluded that ignoring these decisions would be manifestly unjust and, upon reconsideration, concluded that Goulds had a duty to warn: “the court finds that the South Carolina Supreme Court would likely reject the bare metal defense and find that a manufacturer is subject to a duty to warn about potential dangers from exposure to parts of its product which it did not manufacture or otherwise supply. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider on this ground and denies Goulds’s motion for summary judgment.”
Click here for a copy of this decision.
If you have questions about how this case may impact your business, please contact: