Constanza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ERICA DANDRY CONSTANZA, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS CASE NO. 24-871

SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION: “G”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Defendant Paramount Global’s (“Paramount”) “Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment Regarding Turbines.”1 In this litigation, Plaintiffs Erica Dandry Constanza

and Monica Dandry Hallner (“Plaintiffs”) allege Decedent Michael P. Dandry, Jr. (“Decedent”),

while an employee for Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (“Avondale”),2 was exposed to asbestos

and asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, sold, and/or handled by Avondale and

other parties, including Paramount (collectively, “Defendants”).3 Plaintiffs allege this exposure

caused and/or contributed to Decedent’s development of mesothelioma and, ultimately, his death.4

Paramount moves the Court to dismiss all claims asserted by Plaintiffs and Avondale regarding

Paramount supplied marine turbines, as the potential source of Decedent’s asbestos exposure.5

1 Rec. Doc. 199.

2 Huntington Ingalls, Inc. was formerly known as: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., Northrop

Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., Avondale Industries, Inc., Avondale Shipyard Inc., and Avondale Marine Ways, Inc.

3 Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 2. In addition to Avondale, Plaintiffs also named SPARTA Insurance Company, Bayer

CropScience, Inc., Foster-Wheeler, LLC, General Electric Company, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Taylor-Seidenbach,

Inc., Paramount Global, Uniroyal, Inc., International Paper Company, Eagle, Inc., Uniroyal Holding, Inc., and Liberty

Mutual Insurance Company as defendants.

4 Id.

5 Rec. Doc. 199.

Plaintiffs and Avondale oppose the motion.6 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in

support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the motion.

I. Background

Plaintiffs allege Decedent was employed in various positions by Avondale between June 1,

1971, and August 16, 1971.7 During that time, Plaintiffs claim Decedent was exposed to asbestos

and asbestos-containing products on Avondale’s premises.8 Plaintiffs further assert Decedent was

exposed to asbestos carried home from his work at Avondale on his person, clothing, and other

items.9 Plaintiffs argue, as a result of breathing in these asbestos fibers, Decedent later developed

mesothelioma and other ill health effects, ultimately resulting in Decedent’s death.10 Plaintiffs

contend Defendants had “care, custody, and control of the asbestos, which asbestos was defective

and which presented an unreasonable risk of harm, which asbestos resulted in the injury of

[Decedent] and for which these defendants are strictly liable under Louisiana law.”11 Plaintiffs

claim “Avondale and its executive officers [ ] are answerable for the conduct of those handling

asbestos products on their premises” and that “Avondale failed to exercise reasonable care for the

safety of persons on or around their property” for which there were clear “standards” requiring

protection for workers.12

6 Rec. Docs. 242, 246.

7 Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 2.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id. at 4.

11 Id. at 5.

12 Id.

Plaintiffs also name numerous additional defendants, including Paramount, who were in

the business of “manufacturing, fabricating, selling and/or distributing asbestos containing

products.”13 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “sold, installed, removed and/or abated these

products to and/or at Avondale,” and Decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products as a

result.14 Further, Plaintiffs allege that these asbestos containing products were “unreasonably

dangerous per se, were defective in design, and constituted a breach of warranty from said

manufacturers.”15 It is also alleged that Paramount failed to warn of the hazards of asbestos,

including the risk of mesothelioma.16 Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Dandry died of

mesothelioma as a result of exposures to asbestos, in part originating from asbestos attributable to

Paramount products—including the insulation and gaskets used with marine turbines.17 Avondale

filed a crossclaim against Paramount for contribution.18

Billy Jambon was employed by Avondale in a similar role as Decedent during the same

time as Decedent.19 Mr. Jambon specifically recalled seeing Mr. Dandry working as an outside

machinist helper at Avondale’s Shipyard in the engine rooms of Destroyer Escorts and LASH

vessels, which were under construction.20 Mr. Jambon testified that Mr. Dandry was working on

13 Id. at 18.

14 Id. at 19.

15 Id.

16 Rec. Doc. 1-2 at 10.

17 Id. at 2, 4, 5, 8, 13.

18 Rec. Doc. 5.

19 Rec. Doc. 242-2 at 9. In addition to being Decedent’s coworker Mr. Jambon was also related to Decedent

through marriage.

20 Id. at 10–11.

turbines manufactured by Paramount in the engine rooms of the Destroyer Escorts.21 Mr. Jambon

noted that while in the engine rooms, Mr. Dandry would have worked around insulators who were

covering pipes and insulating equipment.22 With regard to the insulating materials, Mr. Jambon

testified that the various materials would create dust, which would “fly all over the place.”23

Further, multiple experts retained in this case have opined that Decedent had exposure to asbestos

from the insulation of the Paramount turbines.24 Additionally, those experts share the opinion that

said asbestos exposure “significantly increased the risk” or was a significant contributing factor to

Decedent’s development of mesothelioma.25

On September 16, 2025, Paramount filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment.26 On September 23, 2025, Avondale and Plaintiffs opposed the Motion.27 On September

29, 2025, Paramount filed a reply in further support of the Motion.28

II. Parties’ Arguments

A. Paramount’s Arguments in Support of the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment

Paramount claims that “there is no evidence Michael P. Dandry, Jr. was exposed to asbestos

containing products manufactured, sold, supplied or installed by [Paramount] in connection with

marine turbines, much less that such exposure, if any, was a substantial contributing cause of his

21 Id. at 17.

22 Id. at 13–14.

23 Id. at 17–18.

24 Rec. Docs. 242-6 at 39; 242-8 at 8; 242-11 at 37–38.

25 Rec. Docs. 242-6 at 39; 242-9 at 7; 242-11 at 7–8.

26 Rec. Doc. 199.

27 Rec. Docs. 242, 246.

28 Rec. Doc. 283.

mesothelioma.”29 Paramount contends that the substantial factor test governs the issue of causation

here, where “two or more causes of injury are present in a cumulative disease case.”30 Paramount

asserts that in order to meet their burden Plaintiffs “must first prove that Decedent was actually

exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured, sold, or supplied by [Paramount].”31

Further, Paramount submits that Plaintiffs must show that Decedent had “significant exposure to

the product complained of to the extent that it was a substantial factor in bringing about his

injury.”32 To meet this standard Paramount asserts that Plaintiffs must prove “frequent” and

“regular” exposure to the source of asbestos.33 Paramount claims that Plaintiffs cannot meet their

burden of proof because “[t]here is no testimony or other evidence that Decedent personally

worked on a [Paramount] turbine or that he was a bystander to others performing work on a

[Paramount] turbine.”34 Additionally, Paramount argues that the presence of turbines manufactured

by Paramount on vessels that Decedent boarded during his employment does not prove that

Decedent was exposed to asbestos attributable to those turbines.35

Paramount submits that even if Decedent was around Avondale employees performing

insulation work on a Paramount turbine, Paramount “is not legally responsible for Decedent’s

29 Rec. Doc. 199 at 1.

30 Rec. Doc. 199-2 at 5 (citing Young v. Logue, 94-0585, p. 19 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/16/95), 660 So.2d 32, 46-

47).

31 Id. at 6.

32 Id.

33 Id. (citing In Re Asbestos Plaintiffs v. Bordelon, Inc., 96-0525 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/21/98), 726 So.2d 926,

939).

34 Id. at 7.

35 Id. at 7–8.

alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products it did not manufacture, sell, supply, or install.”36

Paramount asserts that there is no dispute that Paramount’s marine turbines were “bare metal”

when supplied to Avondale.37 Further, Paramount contends that any exterior insulation work done

on said turbines was “done by Avondale, using materials manufactured, sold, and supplied by

Avondale and/or companies other than [Paramount].”38 Paramount cites Newman v. General

Motors Corp. to argue that “a manufacturer or seller cannot be liable in a products liability action

where it proves that it did not manufacture, install, or sell the component part alleged to be

defective.”39

Finally, Paramount cites Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co., a recent case in another section of this

Court where it was held that products liability claims brought against Paramount failed because

Paramount “could not be liable for insulation which Avondale installed on its products when

[Paramount] did not manufacture or supply the insulation.”40 Paramount asserts that Cortez is

directly on point for the instant matter because here Paramount “did not manufacture, sell, design,

install, specify, require, or recommend that asbestos-containing exterior insulation be applied to

its marine turbines.”41 Further, Paramount contends that it had no duty to warn about “the dangers

inherent in the products of third parties, which were purchased and installed by Avondale.”42 Thus,

36 Id. at 9.

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 Id. (citing 524 So. 2d 207 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 1988)).

40 Id. at 10 (citing 610 F. Supp. 3d 877, 890 (E.D. La. 2022)).

41 Id. at 10–11.

42 Id.

even if Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation applied to a Paramount turbine,

Paramount argues it cannot be held liable.43

B. Avondale’s Arguments in Opposition to the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment

Avondale opposes the instant motion, claiming that there are “genuine issues of material

fact as to whether: 1) Decedent, Mr. Michael Dandry, Jr., was exposed to asbestos from

[Paramount] turbines; and 2) such exposures were a substantial contributing cause of his

mesothelioma.”44 First, Avondale argues that Paramount incorrectly cites a more stringent

causation standard that is not applicable to mesothelioma cases.45 Avondale contends that the

“frequent, regular exposure” causation standard is reserved for asbestosis and lung cancer cases,

not mesothelioma cases.46 Avondale submits that because mesothelioma can be contracted with

significantly less exposure the Louisiana Fourth Circuit has applied a different causation

standard.47 That court has held that “[a]ll above-background or non-trivial exposures to asbestos

are substantial contributing causes of mesothelioma.”48

Second, Avondale criticizes Paramount’s “bare metal” defense.49 Avondale contends that

even if Paramount did not manufacture or supply the asbestos-containing insulation, it can be liable

for Decedent’s resulting mesothelioma because those materials were necessary for the safe

43 Id. at 11.

44 Rec. Doc. 242 at 1.

45 Id. at 10.

46 Id.

47 Id.

48 Id. at 11 (quoting McAskill v. American Marine, 2007-1445, 7–8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/09), 9 So.3d 264,

268).

49 Id. at 11

operation of the turbines.50 Avondale cites multiple cases in this Court and others where the courts

found that a defendant was not entitled to a “bare metal” defense where the asbestos containing

materials were integrated into the defendant’s product according to the defendant’s

specifications.51 Avondale argues that because Paramount designed its turbines to require

insulation for proper functionality, it must have known that asbestos-containing insulation would

be used since this was the only effective insulation material commercially available in the 1960s

and 1970s, when the turbines at issue would have been manufactured.52

Turning to the evidence, Avondale asserts that Mr. Jambon, an Avondale coworker of

Decedent, testified that he specifically recalled seeing Decedent working in the engine rooms of

Destroyer Escorts and LASH vessels, which were under construction.53 Further, Mr. Jambon said

that Decedent was working on the turbines of the Destroyer Escorts which were manufactured by

Paramount.54 Additionally, Mr. Jambon testified that Decedent would have worked around

insulators who were covering pipes and insulating equipment in the engine rooms.55 Mr. Jambon

also testified that the insulating materials would create dust which would “fly all over the place.”56

50 Id. at 11–12.

51 Id. at 12–13 (citing McAllister v. McDermott, Inc., 2020 WL 4745743, at *12 (M.D. La. Aug. 14, 2020);

Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 2017 WL 889083, at *5 (E.D. La. Mar. 6, 2017); Lopez v. McDermott, Inc.,

2020 WL 3964989, at **7-9 (E.D. La. Jul. 13, 2020); Becnel v. Lamorak Ins. Co., et al., 2022 WL 3704029, at *6

(E.D. La. Aug. 26, 2022)).

52 Id. at 15.

53 Id. at 2.

54 Id. at 2–3.

55 Id. at 3.

56 Id.

In addition to Mr. Jambon’s testimony, Avondale offers the reports and testimony of several

experts that connect the Paramount turbines to Decedent’s alleged asbestos exposure.57 First,

Avondale cites Dr. Rodney Landreneau’s report, who opines that Decedent’s exposure to asbestos

from Paramount turbines was a significant contributing cause to Decedent’s development of

mesothelioma.58 Further, in Dr. Stephen Kraus’s report he noted that Decedent had significant

exposure to asbestos from Paramount turbines and said exposure was a significant contributing

cause to Decedent’s development of mesothelioma.59 Additionally, in Mr. Gerard Baril’s report he

opined that Decedent sustained exposures to asbestos from Paramount turbines, which

significantly increased the risk of Decedent developing mesothelioma.60

Avondale also offers the testimony of various former Avondale employees who confirm

the presence asbestos-containing insulation and gaskets on Paramount turbines during the period

when Decedent worked at Avondale.61 These former employees also recall that Paramount

representatives directed or oversaw the installation of insulation on the turbines.62 Moreover,

Avondale asserts that Paramount representatives have testified that Paramount turbines were

designed to be insulated and that Paramount often shipped insulation with the turbines to be applied

on location.63

57 Id.

58 Id.

59 Id. at 3–4.

60 Id. at 4.

61 Id. at 5–7.

62 Id.

63 Id. at 7–8.

Additionally, Avondale relies on the testimony of Mark Perello, a Paramount corporate

designee, to assert that Paramount required asbestos insulation blankets to be used with its

turbines.64 Avondale also cites the testimony of James Gate, a corporate representative for

Paramount, who testified that the turbines were designed to be insulated.65 Further, Avondale puts

forth a corporate representative of Paramount, Roy Belanger’s testimony, which established that

the turbines required insulation because without it there was a risk of a catastrophic equipment

failure.66 Avondale also asserts that Mr. Belanger’s testimony proves that Paramount knew that

asbestos-containing insulation would be used on its turbines because that was the only

commercially available insulation at the time.67 Lastly, Avondale refers to Paramount corporate

representative, Douglas Ware’s testimony to assert that Paramount had a specification calling for

the use of an asbestos insulation blanket on its turbine until 1973.68

Avondale contends that the standard of proof to defeat summary judgment here is “merely

a preponderance of the evidence” and that “circumstantial evidence is sufficient to constitute a

preponderance, when, taking evidence as a whole, such proof shows that the fact or causation

sought to be proved is more probable than not.”69 However, Avondale asserts that in light of the

above-referenced direct and circumstantial evidence the facts establish that:

(1) Michael Dandry, Jr. was exposed to asbestos-containing

products, including asbestos containing insulation and gaskets, from

Westinghouse turbines; (2) the corporate representative of

Westinghouse testified that Westinghouse turbines were installed

64 Id. at 7.

65 Id. at 8.

66 Id.

67 Id. at 9.

68 Id.

69 Id. at 16.

aboard the Destroyer Escorts that were constructed during Mr.

Dandry’s Avondale employment, (3) according to Billy Jambon, Mr.

Dandry worked around Westinghouse turbines in the engine rooms

of vessels at Avondale, including Destroyer Escorts; (4)

Westinghouse turbines were designed to require the use of asbestos-

containing materials including asbestos insulation and gaskets; (5)

Westinghouse knew and expected that asbestos insulation and

gaskets would be used to insulate its turbines but never provided any

warnings about asbestos hazards; and (6) Plaintiffs’ experts, Dr.

Stephen Kraus, Gerard Baril, and Dr. Rodney Landreneau, have

opined that Mr. Dandry’s exposure to asbestos associated with

Westinghouse turbines was significant such that it was a substantial

contributing factor in Mr. Dandry’s development of mesothelioma.70

Hence, Avondale argues that material issues of fact exist as to whether Decedent was significantly

exposed to asbestos from Paramount’s turbines, which was a substantial contributing factor to the

development of his mesothelioma.71

C. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Opposition to the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment

Like Avondale, Plaintiffs assert that Decedent’s exposure to asbestos from Paramount’s

turbines was a significant contributing factor in his development of mesothelioma.72 In support of

their assertion, Plaintiffs cite similar evidence as cited above by Avondale including: (1) Mr.

Jambon’s testimony; (2) the testimony of numerous former Avondale employees; (3) the testimony

of Paramount representatives; and (4) the testimony of numerous expert witnesses.73

Further, Plaintiffs like Avondale argue that the “bare metal” defense cannot be successfully

asserted where the metal product requires an asbestos-containing product to function.74 Plaintiffs

70 Id. at 17–18.

71 Id. at 16.

72 Rec. Doc. 246 at 1.

73 Id. at 2–15.

74 Id. at 16 (citing Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., No. 22-1767, 2024 WL 1624889, at *3 (E.D. La.

Apr. 15, 2024)).

assert that Paramount designed its turbines to require asbestos-containing insulation materials and

gaskets for safe operation.75 Thus, Paramount may not rely on a “bare metal” defense.76

Accordingly, Plaintiffs imply that the evidence in the absence of a feasible “bare metal” defense

establishes a material dispute of fact that Decedent was exposed to a significant amount of asbestos

from Paramount’s turbines and that said asbestos exposure was a significant contributing factor to

Decedent’s development of mesothelioma.77

D. Paramount’s Arguments in Further Support of the Partial Motion for Summary

Judgment

In reply, Paramount reasserts that there is no evidence that Decedent was exposed to

asbestos attributable to Paramount.78 Paramount maintains its position despite testimony by former

Avondale employees confirming the presence of Paramount turbines along with asbestos-

containing insulation and gaskets on Destroyer Escorts, and Mr. Jambon’s testimony claiming that

he saw Decedent aboard Destroyer Escorts.79 Paramount submits that none of these witnesses

actually witnessed Decedent while he was working.80 Therefore, Paramount contends that neither

the testimonial nor other evidence establishes that Decedent “personally worked on a marine

turbine, or that he was present while others installed a marine turbine[.]”81 As a result, Paramount

75 Id. at 16–18.

76 Id.

77 See generally Rec. Doc. 246.

78 Rec. Doc. 283 at 1.

79 Id. at 2–3.

80 Id. at 3.

81 Id.

asserts that Plaintiffs cannot meet the higher threshold of proving that Decedent was exposed to

asbestos dust coming from the turbine insulation or gaskets.82

Paramount also renews its argument that even if Decedent was exposed to asbestos-

containing insulation or gaskets from its turbines, Paramount did not manufacture, sell, supply, or

install the asbestos-containing materials and therefore cannot be held liable for the resulting

injury.83 Further, Paramount replies to the testimony of Mark Perello a Paramount representative

cited by the opposing parties, which confirmed that Paramount turbines required asbestos

insulation to function properly.84 Paramount asserts that Mr. Perello was referring to “land-based

turbines, not marine turbines.”85 Thus, Paramount contends that there is no evidence that their

marine turbines required asbestos insulation.86 Additionally, Paramount claims that the other

Paramount representatives that testified that Paramount knew that the marine turbines would be

insulated with asbestos insulation are factually incorrect.87 Paramount submits that it knew its

turbines would be insulated, but did not require the insulation to contain asbestos.88

Paramount avers that the caselaw relied upon by the opposing parties is either

distinguishable from the case at bar, supports Paramount’s position, or is not controlling on this

Court.89 Paramount argues that Bencel v. Laromark Ins. Co. does not contradict the holding in

82 Id.

83 Id.

84 Id. at 4.

85 Id. The docket entry cited by Paramount to support this assertion (Rec. Doc. 196-21) does not exist.

86 Id.

87 Id.

88 Id.

89 Id.

Cortez; thus, the Court should follow Cortez, which is directly on point.90 Further, Bell v. Foster

Wheeler Energy Corp. “applies general maritime law rather than Louisiana Law,” the McAllister

v. McDermott, Inc. opinion was issued in the Middle District of Louisiana, the court in Lopez v.

McDermott, Inc. “did not consider the fact that the design of the valves [ ] did not [require] the use

of an asbestos-containing gasket,” and in Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. the court dismissed

the plaintiff’s design defect claim because “she failed to provide any evidence that the design of

[Paramount’s] turbines required asbestos containing insulation.”91 For these reasons, Paramount

asserts that the Court should follow the holding in Cortez.92

Finally, Paramount replies to the opposing parties’ reliance on expert witnesses.93

Paramount contends that Gerard Baril, Dr. Stephen Kraus, and Dr. Rodney Landreneau all

presumed that Decedent worked on or around Paramount turbines when forming their opinions.94

Paramount asserts that when a “fact relied upon by an expert is not proven, the opinion based on

that fact cannot be considered.”95 Hence, Paramount argues that said experts’ opinions cannot be

relied upon because no admissible evidence confirms that Decedent worked on or near the

90 Id.

91 Id. at 5–6 (citing McAllister, 2020 WL 4745743, at *12; Bell, 2017 WL 889083, at *5; Lopez, 2020 WL

3964989, at **7–9; Becnel, 2022 WL 3704029, at *6; Legendre, 2024 WL 1624889, at *3).

92 Id. at 6.

93 Id. at 7.

94 Id.

95 Id. 7–8 (citing Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 80–81 (2012) (finding if there is no independent,

admissible evidence to prove foundational facts, the expert's testimony cannot be given weight by the trier of fact)).

turbines.96 Therefore, Paramount contends that the opposing parties have failed to establish a

genuine issue of material fact to overcome summary judgment.97

III. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”98 The court must view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the nonmovant.99 Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the

basis for the motion; that is, the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact or facts.100 The

burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine

dispute.101 “A dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is such that a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”102

IV. Analysis

A. Causation Standard

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that Decedent:(1) “had

significant exposure to the product complained of, and that (2) the exposure to the product was a

substantial factor in bringing about [Decedent’s] injury.”103 However, Paramount asserts that

96 Id. at 8.

97 Id.

98 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

99 Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).

100 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

101 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87

(1986).

102 Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted).

103 Cortez, 610 F. Supp. at 882 (citing Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 2008-1163, p. 35 (La. 05/22/09), 16

So. 3d 1065, 1091 (internal quotations omitted)).

Plaintiffs must prove frequent and regular exposure to the source of asbestos to meet the substantial

factor standard. This assertion is incorrect, in Williams v. Boeing Co. the Fifth Circuit held that

“[e]ven if the plaintiff was only exposed to asbestos for a short period for an employer[,] and he

had longer exposure working for others, it cannot be said the relatively short asbestos exposure

was not a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.”104 To survive summary judgment

Plaintiffs “need only show that a reasonable jury could conclude that it is more likely than not that

[Decedent] inhaled defendant’s asbestos fibers, even if there were only slight exposures[.]”105

Hence, Plaintiffs need only prove that Decedent was exposed to the asbestos-containing insulation

or gaskets used on Paramount’s marine turbines and that a reasonable jury could conclude that it

is more likely than not that that Decedent inhaled asbestos fibers from those materials, even if the

exposure was only for a brief period.

B. Decedent’s Exposure to Asbestos from Turbine Materials

The products complained of here are the asbestos-containing insulation and gaskets used

on the marine turbines, which were installed on Destroyer Escorts during Decedent’s employment

at Avondale. The parties do no dispute that Paramount turbines were installed on Destroyer Escorts

during Decedent’s employment. Instead, Paramount argues that there is no evidence establishing

that Decedent worked around or near its turbines. However, multiple former Avondale employees

have testified that the insulation used on Paramount’s turbines contained asbestos during the period

of Decedent’s employment. Further, Mr. Jambon, who worked at Avondale during the same period

as Decedent, recalled seeing Decedent working in the engine rooms where the turbines were

located. Mr. Jambon also testified that when the insulation materials were installed on the turbines

104 23 F.4th 507, 512 (5th Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted).

105 Id.

dust would “fly all over the place.”106 Taken together, because Plaintiffs need only establish “slight

exposur[e]” to respirable asbestos, based on the testimony of Mr. Jambon and the other former

Avondale employees, the Court finds that “a reasonable jury could conclude that it is more likely

than not” that Decedent inhaled asbestos fibers attributable to the turbine insulation or gaskets.107

However, the issue remains of whether Decedent’s potential asbestos exposure could be

legally attributed to Paramount. Paramount argues that even if Decedent was exposed to asbestos

while working on or near its turbines, said exposure is not attributable to Paramount because it did

not manufacture sell, supply, or install the asbestos-containing materials. In opposition, Avondale

puts forth the testimony of four Paramount corporate representatives. Relying on said testimony,

Avondale asserts that Paramount knew that its turbines had to be insulated for them to safely

operate and were designed to be insulated by asbestos-containing materials because that was the

only suitable insulation commercially available at the time and the specifications called for

asbestos insulating blankets until at least 1973.

Turning to the legal standard, “[t]he substantive law that governs [P]laintiffs’ claims is the

law in effect when the alleged exposure occurred.”108 The applicable law here is the Louisiana

products-liability law in effect prior to the 1987 enactment of the Louisiana Products Liability Act

(“LPLA”).109 This law was summarized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Halphen v. Johns-

Manville Sales Corp., where the court explained that “[i]n order to recover from a manufacturer,

the plaintiff must prove that the harm resulted from the condition of the product, that the condition

106 Rec. Doc. 242-2 at 17–18.

107 Williams, 23 F.4th at 512

108 Cortez, 610 F. Supp. at 882 (citing Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 2008-1163, p. 35 (La. 05/22/09), 16

So. 3d 1065, 1091 (internal quotations omitted)).

109 Id. at 883.

made the product unreasonably dangerous to normal use, and that the condition existed at the time

the product left the manufacturer’s control.”110 At issue here is whether Paramount’s product was

“unreasonably dangerous,” under any of the recognized theories of liability: “(1) unreasonably

dangerous in construction or composition, (2) unreasonably dangerous per se, (3) unreasonably

dangerous in design, or (4) unreasonably dangerous for failure to warn.”111 Further, pre-LPLA

Louisiana law categorized asbestos as unreasonably dangerous per se.112 “A product is

unreasonably dangerous per se if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact of

the product, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product.”113

Regarding the gaskets used in the turbines, former Avondale employee Clemcy Legendre

testified that asbestos-containing gaskets would sometimes come shipped with the turbines.114

Further, Mr. Legendre stated that the gaskets sometimes had labeling that indicated they contained

asbestos and that Paramount representatives, who never provided any warning about the dangers,

called the gaskets “[a]sbestos gaskets”.115 Given Mr. Legendre’s testimony, a reasonable jury could

find that Paramount could be liable for supplying that asbestos product and failing to warn.

Additionally, Paramount representative Roy Belanger testified that Paramount would have

been aware during the 1960s and 1970s that its turbines would be insulated with asbestos-

containing insulation.116 Mr. Belanger also stated that Paramount never provided any warnings

110 484 So. 2d 110, 113 (La. 1986).

111 Becnel, 2022 WL 3704029, at *3.

112 Id.

113 Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 2004-1589 (La. App. 1 Cir. 09/23/05), 923 So. 2d 118, 122.

114 Rec. Doc. 242-12 at 4–5.

115 Id. at 6.

116 Rec. Doc. 242-4 at 20.

related to the asbestos used with the turbines.!!’ Further, Paramount representative Douglas Ware

testified that the 600-359 asbestos blanket insulation was the insulation used by Paramount until

1973.!'8 The U.S. Supreme Court held in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries that a manufacturer

has a duty to warn when its product requires later incorporation of a dangerous part for the

integrated product to function as intended.'!? Thus, because Paramount required insulation for its

turbines to function safely and there is testimonial evidence that Paramount was aware the

asbestos-containing insulation would be used on its turbines, a jury may find Paramount liable

based on their failure to warn of the dangers of the required asbestos insulation. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Paramount’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Regarding Turbines”!”° is DENIED.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 19th gay of November, 2025.

NANNETTE JOLIV E BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NT Td at 12.

18 Rec. Doc. 242-18 at 2.

119 586 US. 446, 454-55.

120 Rec. Doc. 199.

19