The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eduardo C. Robreno, J.
Before the Court is the report and recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell, and joined by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey and Judge David R. Strawbridge ("the Panel"), and defendant Buffalo Pump, Inc.'s objections thereto. The Panel recommends that the Court deny Crane Co. Inc.'s motion for summary judgment.*fn1 Federal jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The issue before the Court is product identification.
Plaintiffs Salvatore Gitto and his wife, Phyllis Gitto ("Plaintiffs") filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging that Mr. Gitto developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials while employed by the U.S. Navy as a shipfitter mechanic and shipbuilding and hull machinery inspector. The action was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL-875 in October 2007.
Mr. Gitto was employed as a shipfitter from 1951-1996. (R&R at 2-3). He began as an apprentice shipfitter at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, was drafted and served in the United States Army from 1952-1954. (Id. at 2.) He completed his shipfitter apprentice program in April 1957. (Id. at 3.) Approximately four years later, he was promoted to shipbuilding and hull machinery inspection, and continued to work at the Brooklyn Navy Yard until it closed in May 1996. (Id.)
Mr. Gitto analogized the job of shipfitter to that of a carpenter in the construction industry. In a new ship, shipfitters were responsible for building the structural foundation of a ship. They "put the flooring in, put the walls in, put the ceiling in, put the doors on, put the lath, put the staircases in . . . ." (Gitto Video Dep. at 14-15). After the foundation was complete, the shipfitters were on standby in the general area of the ship when new pieces of equipment were installed by other tradesman. Mr. Gitto testified that while the new pieces of equipment were being insulated, the air conditions were "usually dusty and dirty and filled with fibers." (Id. at 21-22, 32).
In addition to working on the construction of new ships, Mr. Gitto was also responsible for re-commissioning old ships. This involved checking and removing old foundations, building new foundations, and doing any repairs necessary to return the ship to serviceable condition. (R&R at 4). Mr. Gitto testified that he was responsible for removing insulation on old equipment and removing old piping "which was loaded with asbestos." (Gitto Video Dep. at 27-28). He was also in the vicinity while other tradesmen removed or repaired old equipment, which done in a destructive manner, with tradesman burning, ripping, or chipping old equipment. (R&R at 4). During the removal process, Mr. Gitto testified that the air conditions were "Horrible. Dusty, dirty. Fibers, you could breathe the dust in. The room was so bad you could hardly see your hand in front of your face. The ventilation was poor." (Gitto Dep. Vol. II, doc. no. at 28-29). After the foundation was finished, Mr. Gitto was present when outside machinists drilled a series of mounting holes into the equipment so that it could be attached to the foundation. (Gitto Video Dep. at 31).
Mr. Gitto recalled a variety of ships on which he performed work including the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (USS "FDR"), USS Independence, and USS New Jersey. (Gitto Dep. Vol. I, doc. no. at 81-82). Mr. Gitto testified that he performed new construction on the USS Independence, and that he was involved in construction to rehabilitate the USS FDR and USS New Jersey. (Id. at 122-24). Mr. Gitto recalled spending about a month or less on the USS New Jersey, and could not recall how long he was on the USS FDR. (Id. at 124-25). He testified that he spent about six months aboard the USS Independence. (Gitto Dep. Vol II, doc no. at 174-75).
Crane Co. moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence establishing Crane Co. as the manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to which Mr. Gitto was exposed. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., doc. no. 44, at 9). The Panel issued its R&R on June 29, 2010, denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment.
Crane Co. raises three objections to the Panel's R&R. First, Crane Co. argues that it cannot be held liable for asbestos-containing products that were made or supplied by third parties. Second, Crane Co. argues that there is no evidence that Crane Co. supplied any of the asbestos-containing materials to which Mr. Gitto was exposed. Third, the Panel's conclusion that Crane Co. valves incorporated or required the use of asbestos was based on speculation
For the reasons set forth below, Crane Co.'s objections are overruled, and adopts the Panel's R&R denying Crane ...