Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a former welder and pipefitter diagnosed with mesothelioma failed to proffer evidence showing a defendant’s fittings were a substantial factor in causing his disease.

Linwood Pierce worked as a welder and pipefitter beginning in the mid-1960s. After forming a company with his father, Pierce worked on projects at the Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point military bases in eastern North Carolina. He was diagnosed as having mesothelioma in 2021.

Pierce sued Ameron International Corp. and others, alleging that it had manufactured, sold, or distributed asbestos-containing products or raw asbestos materials in states where he worked as a welder and pipefitter. The plaintiff asserted claims for defective design, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and gross negligence. Ameron International moved for summary judgment, contending there was no evidence in the record showing that the plaintiff was actually exposed to any asbestos-containing Ameron products and with the frequency and regularity required by law to find the company liable for the plaintiff’s mesothelioma.

Granting the motion, the district court noted that the parties dispute whether the pipe the plaintiff installed at Camp Lejeune was the defendant’s Bondstrand pipe. The plaintiff admitted at deposition that he used the term Bondstrand generically and did not actually know who supplied or manufactured the pipe he installed. The defendant’s corporate representative acknowledged, however, that Ameron had sold a lot of pipe to the military and that the plaintiff’s testimony about the pipe was generally accurate. The court found that although the record was devoid of direct evidence supporting the plaintiff’s assertion that he had installed Bondstrand pipe, there was at least some circumstantial evidence to support the plaintiff’s recollection. A reasonable jury could therefore conclude that the plaintiff had installed Ameron-manufactured pipe and fittings at Camp Lejeune, the court concluded.

Nevertheless, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to proffer evidence showing his exposure to Ameron’s fittings was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony leads to a reasonable inference that he had used Ameron’s fittings at various points throughout the pipe installation process, including when he would attach lengths of cut pipe, the court found. Without more detail, the court nonetheless stated, the testimony allows only for speculation as to how frequently, regularly, and proximately he had used the fittings, and this is inadequate to support a reasonable inference of substantial causation. For example, there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff had ever sanded, shaved, cut, or manipulated the fittings he installed, providing no basis for the court to infer that he had breathed in asbestos while using the defendant’s products.

Based on the extent of missing information, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff’s exposure to the defendant’s fittings was the probable cause of his mesothelioma.

Citation: Pierce v. Ameron Int’l Corp., 2025 WL 1807854 (M.D.N.C. July 1, 2025).