Plaintiff's Claims
First, Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in defining the word “defendant” in Section 686B.7(5) as “any entity in an asbestos suit.” Instead, Plaintiffs urged that “defendant” be defined as “one that makes or sells an asbestos product.” The appellate court disagreed with Plaintiffs' proposed definition, stating that the established legal meaning of “defendant” is, in part, a “person sued in a civil proceeding.” The appellate court noted that the legislature is presumed to intend the established legal meaning of a word unless context shows otherwise, which in this case it did not.
Second, Plaintiffs claimed Section 686B.7(5) was essentially a codification of the bare metal defense, which is only applicable to product manufacturers. In turn, Plaintiffs argued that the district court should have interpreted Section 686B.7(5) to only protect product manufacturers. The appellate court disagreed and reasoned that the statutory text of Section 686B.7(5) neither implicitly nor explicitly limited immunity to product manufacturers. Additionally, while immunity protections under Section 686B.7(5) may overlap with the protections of the bare metal defense, the appellate court found no reason to believe the legislature intended to codify the bare metal defense with the enaction of Section 686B.7(5).
Lastly, Plaintiffs argued that Section 686B.7(5) should only apply to product manufacturers because, under the district court's interpretation, Section 686B.7(5) would eliminate the liability of premises owners and asbestos product suppliers which, Plaintiffs claimed, was “absurd in the extreme.” The appellate court again disagreed, noting that the purpose of Section 686B.7(5) was to narrow asbestos litigation by protecting defendants against liability for exposure to products made or sold by a third party, which refocused asbestos litigation on more culpable targets.
Court's Ruling
The appellate court ultimately concluded that Plaintiffs did not show the district court erred by granting immunity to
The
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
CO 80202
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source