2009 Ct. Sup. 10520
No. CV 07-5006717 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
June 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE AURORA PUMP COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DAVID W. SKOLNICK, JUDGE.
Plaintiff Dorothy Drucker and her husband Paul Drunker filed the instant claim against multiple defendants, including the defendant Aurora Pump Company, for personal injuries sustained as the result of Mr. Drucker’s exposure to asbestos containing products while in the United States Navy from 1943 to 1950. Thereafter, upon re-enlisting Mr. Drucker worked as a man-power and planning estimator at General Dynamics from 1950 to 1988. As a result of his exposure to asbestos while in the Navy and, thereafter, while working for General Dynamics, he developed mesothelioma which caused his death on May 3, 2007.
There is no question but that Paul Drucker was exposed to asbestos while in the Navy and while working at General Dynamics locations in Groton, Connecticut and the Quincy Shipyard in Boston, Massachusetts, and that such exposure was the cause of his mesothelioma and death. The court, however, must determine whether there is admissible evidence before it that Auraro pumps contained asbestos and that Mr. Drucker was exposed to said asbestos which contributed to causing his death.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs consists of an affidavit of Mr. Drucker which does not identify Aurora, a copy of a letter from Aurora Pumps to the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics concerning the “Tullibe, (SSIN) one of the submarines that Mr. Drucker served on and mentioning “Air Conditioning Sea Water and Chilled Water, Circulating Pump Set.” Mr. Drucker’s affidavit dated February 22, 2007 discloses that he served also on the USS Trutta (SSN421) from August 1943 to December 1945, and the U.S.S. Corsair (SS435) from June 1946 to June 1950. There is no evidence that Aurora pumps were present on these submarines apart from the statement of plaintiff’s expert, Christopher Lane, which mentions Warren and Aurora pumps as used for hot fluids, particularly where used for hot fluid service such as condensate pumps, feed pumps and hot drains, because of pump casing insulation and high temperature gaskets.” It would appear that Lane is suggesting that only Aurora Pumps CT Page 10521 that handle hot fluids are implicated in the asbestos sphere. Unfortunately, the court cannot consider the entire Lane statement as it is hearsay. It is not a statement made under oath at a deposition or otherwise, nor is it in affidavit form.
Aurora is mentioned as a vendor of an “Air Cond. Chilled Water and Circ. Water Pump on a “page 2” document furnished by plaintiffs, but, no mention of whether said pump contains asbestos nor does it place said pump on any particular submarine or surface ship that plaintiff served on or near. It appears to indicate that following manufacture on 12-19-56 that pump was received at the Electric Boat Division on 4-19-57.
Accordingly, the court has no evidence either, from Mr. Drucker or fellow workers that he was exposed to an Aurora pump on a ship or at a location where an Aurora pump was present. Nor is there evidence that the one Aurora pump identified contained asbestos which was used most often in applications requiring protection from excessive heat production.
“The plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to support an inference that he inhaled asbestos dust from the defendant’s product.” Peerman v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation 35 F.3rd 284, 287 (7th Cir. 1994). The court does not believe that such an inference can be made from the admissible evidence it has examined.
Accordingly, in the absence of evidence creating a material issue of fact, defendant Aurora Pump Company’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
CT Page 10522