ORDER

WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Mount Vernon Mills' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 276). The Motion has been briefed and is ripe for disposition.1

I. Relevant Background.

This is an asbestos action pending against 11 defendants,2 alleging various state-law tort claims and a wrongful death cause of action based on the alleged exposure of plaintiff's decedent, Rueben Morgan, to asbestos-containing products at various times and locations. Morgan was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma (a disease commonly linked to asbestos exposure) in or about February 2011. (Doc. 199, at Exh. A.) He died on or about November 5, 2012, at the age of 79. (Doc. 206, at Exh. A.)

On May 4, 2011, less than three months after his diagnosis, Morgan initiated this litigation against 42 named defendants (not including Mount Vernon). Morgan's pleadings alleged that he "was exposed to asbestos dust, asbestos particles, asbestos containing materials and products that were produced, manufactured, specified for use, installed, distributed, sold and/or placed into the stream of commerce by the producer and/or distributor Defendants during his employment as a machinist, engine room worker, and mechanic," as a result of which he was "diagnosed with an asbestos related disease." (Doc. 1, Exh. A-2, at 6.) On July 29, 2011, Morgan amended his Complaint to add Mount Vernon as a defendant. (Doc. 4, Exh. B, at 1.)

Record facts concerning Morgan's interactions with Mount Vernon and its products are as follows:3 Morgan was employed as a multi-craft maintenance mechanic at a paper company called MacMillan Bloedel from 1972 through 1974. (Morgan Dep. I, at 86.)4 This facility where Morgan worked produced a brown liner board used in cardboard boxes. (Id. at 88.) In his capacity as a mechanic, Morgan's job duties were to maintain the paper machine and related equipment. (Id. at 86.) MacMillan Bloedel's paper machine utilized so-called "dryer felts," which Morgan characterized as an asbestos-containing product. (Id. at 87; Morgan Dep. III, at 186-87; Morgan Dep. IV, at 242.) In paper mill operations, a dryer felt "takes the sheet from the press section of the paper machine and carries it through a section of heated metal rolls or drums, and it dries — it dries the sheet." (Morgan Dep. III, at 182.) Mount Vernon was one of several suppliers of dryer felts used at MacMillan Bloedel during the 1972-74 period. (Morgan Dep. I, at 87-88, 195-96.) Although he was not involved in the purchase or installation of dryer felts at MacMillan Bloedel, Morgan knew that some of the dryer felts were manufactured by Mount Vernon because "the boxes that they come in ... was nice white pine boxes. ... And so they had their names on them good and bold." (Morgan Dep. III, at 184.) There was at least one other supplier of dryer felts (Albany) used at MacMillan Bloedel during Morgan's employment. (Id. at 183-84, 193-94; Morgan Dep. I, at 87-88.) Morgan testified that Albany and Mount Vernon dryer felts were substantially similar in their usage and appearance. (Morgan Dep. III, at 187.)

Morgan separated from his employment at MacMillan Bloedel in 1974 or 1975. (Morgan Dep. I, at 86, 197; Morgan Dep. III, at 189.) From 1978 through 1992, he worked at the Alabama River Pulp paper mill; however, Morgan testified that the Alabama River Pulp facility did not use dryer felts. (Morgan Dep. I, at 197-98.)5 Even under plaintiff's version of the facts, Morgan had, at most, a single instance of purported exposure to Mount Vernon dryer felts after 1974-75. In particular, sometime in the early 1980s, Morgan went back to the MacMillan Bloedel facility "to get the dimensions and pattern to make a belt grinding attachment for Alabama River Pulp's roll grinder." (Morgan Dep. III, at 192.) Morgan did not go to the dryer section of the MacMillan Bloedel paper machine, but from his location in the roll grinding area, he could feel a draft from the dryer section, such that he would have been exposed to any dust emanating from that area. (Id. at 192-93.) Morgan spent no more than "a couple of days or so" at MacMillan Bloedel on this assignment. (Morgan Dep. IV, at 246.)

The critical question for purposes of the subject summary judgment motion is whether Mount Vernon dryer felts were in use at MacMillan Bloedel in the early 1980s when Morgan briefly visited the facility on his belt grinder assignment. Morgan acknowledged that during his return visit to MacMillan Bloedel, he was not even on the same floor of the paper mill as the dryer section where dryer felts were used. (Morgan Dep. III, at 107-08, 189-90; Morgan Dep. IV, at 243.) Thus, he never saw any dryer felts at MacMillan Bloedel in the 1980s. Moreover, when asked point-blank whether he knew what kind of dryer felts were in the MacMillan Bloedel mill when he came back, Morgan answered, "No." (Morgan Dep. IV, at 122.) Later in the deposition, Morgan testified that he did not believe that MacMillan Bloedel had modified its suppliers of dryer felts between 1974 (when his employment at the plant terminated) and his one-or two-day visit to the plant in the 1980s. (Id. at 245.) As Morgan explained, "[I]f you've got something working, you'd stay with that. ... [F]rom that standpoint if you had a product that's — that's working, doing you a good job, I don't see where you'd change it." (Id. at 244.) So Morgan did not have any reason to believe that MacMillan Bloedel had discontinued use of Mount Vernon dryer felts between the time of his departure from the company in 1974 and his brief foray back into the plant in the early 1980s. But he did not know. Morgan's aforementioned testimony is the only record evidence on this point.

II. Summary Judgment Standard.

Summary judgment should be granted only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The party seeking summary judgment bears "the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial." Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). Once the moving party has satisfied its responsibility, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. "If the nonmoving party fails to make `a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof,' the moving party is entitled to summary judgment." Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)) (footnote omitted). "In reviewing whether the nonmoving party has met its burden, the court must stop short of weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter. Instead, the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 999 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "Summary judgment is justified only for those cases devoid of any need for factual determinations." Offshore Aviation v. Transcon Lines, Inc., 831 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).

III. Analysis.

The central legal issue animating Mount Vernon's Rule 56 Motion is whether Morgan's claims against it are time-barred by the applicable Alabama limitations period. See Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l) ("All actions for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising from contract and not specifically enumerated in this section must be brought within two years.").6

A. Alabama Law Governing Accrual of Causes of Action in Toxic Tort Cases.

Historically, Alabama applied a "last exposure rule" governing commencement of the limitations period for claims alleging personal injuries resulting from exposure to a harmful substance, regardless of when those injuries were manifested. See Garrett v. Raytheon Co., 368 So.2d 516, 521 (Ala. 1979) ("[W]e hold that the statute of limitations ... began to run when plaintiff was last exposed to radiation and plaintiff's ignorance of the tort or injury, there being no fraudulent concealment, does not postpone the running of the statute until the tort or injury is discovered.").

Shortly after Garrett was decided, the Alabama legislature stepped in to modify the accrual rule for asbestos actions, enacting the following provision: "A civil action for any injury... resulting from exposure to asbestos, including asbestos-containing products, shall be deemed to accrue on the first date the injured party, through reasonable diligence, should have reason to discover the injury giving rise to such civil action." Ala. Code § 6-2-30(b). This "discovery rule" for accrual of personal injury claims in asbestos cases took effect on May 19, 1980. The following year, the Alabama Supreme Court examined the retroactivity of § 6-2-30(b), and held that if, before the effective date of that provision, "one year had elapsed between the date of plaintiff's exposure and the date on which plaintiff's action was commenced, then that claim is nevertheless barred by the statute of limitations." Tyson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 399 So.2d 263, 267 (Ala. 1981). Subject to that important caveat, the Tyson Court expressly upheld § 6-2-30(b)'s establishment of "a discovery rule for the accrual of asbestos injury actions in Alabama." Id. at 272.

In the three decades since Tyson was decided, Alabama courts have consistently hewed to the principle that if a plaintiff's last exposure to a defendant's asbestos-containing product predated May 19, 1979, then the resulting personal injury claims were time-barred before § 6-2-30(b) was ever enacted and cannot be revived by operation of that statute. See, e.g., Henderson v. MeadWestvaco Corp., 23 So.3d 625, 630 (Ala. 2009) (following Tyson's determination that asbestos claims are time-barred if, as of May 19, 1980, one year had elapsed between the date of exposure and date of commencement of suit); Johnson v. Garlock, Inc., 682 So.2d 25, 28 (Ala. 1996) (reaffirming principle that "§ 6-2-30 cannot apply retroactively to actions already barred by the statute of limitations as interpreted and applied in Garrett").7

The net result, then, is that Alabama has different rules for accrual of personal injury actions relating to asbestos exposure, depending on whether the last exposure occurred prior to May 19, 1979 (in which case the Garrett "last exposure rule" governs) or whether the last exposure occurred thereafter (in which case the § 6-2-30(b) "discovery rule" applies).8 See In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 2011 WL 3240827, *2 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2011) ("Under Alabama law, all claims for pre-1979 exposure to asbestos must be filed within one year of the last date of exposure. For any exposure to asbestos after May 17, 1980, the claim accrues upon discovery of an asbestos-related disease.").

The Court now applies these well-settled principles of Alabama law to record facts concerning Morgan's exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Mount Vernon.

B. Plaintiff's Claims Relating to Pre-1979 Exposure to Mount Vernon Products are Time-Barred on Their Face.

Plaintiff has offered substantial evidence that Morgan was exposed to asbestos-containing dryer felts manufactured by Mount Vernon from 1972 to 1974, when he was employed at the MacMillan Bloedel facility. The problem is that, as the foregoing discussion demonstrates, any claims relating to Morgan's exposure to Mount Vernon's asbestos-containing products during that time period are time-barred by straightforward application of black-letter Alabama law, as set forth in Tyson and its progeny. See, e.g., Henderson, 23 So.3d at 630 ("Tony Henderson's claim of personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos would have accrued in 1972, on the date of his last exposure to asbestos at CAPCO. Based on the one-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims at the time ..., his claim was time-barred in 1973.").

Under Alabama law, Morgan's claims of personal injury resulting from exposure to Mount Vernon-manufactured asbestos during his employment at MacMillan Bloedel would have accrued in 1974, when he was last exposed to Mount Vernon products there. Based on the one-year statute of limitations applicable at the time, Morgan's claims for these 1972-74 exposures would have become time-barred in 1975, some 36 years before he sued Mount Vernon. By operation of Tyson, those time-barred claims were not revived, revitalized or resuscitated by the Alabama legislature's subsequent enactment of § 6-2-30(b). Plaintiff has offered no persuasive argument or authority that might allow his claims for 1972-74 exposures at MacMillan Bloedel to be deemed timely under Alabama law; therefore, Mount Vernon's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted insofar as it relates to those pre-1979 events.9

C. Plaintiff Has No Evidence of Post-1979 Exposure to Mount Vernon Products from which a Rational Finder of Fact Might Infer Causation/Liability.

"Under Alabama law, when a plaintiff shows post-1979 exposure to asbestos, his or her action does not `accrue' until the individual knew or should have known of an asbestos-related disease." In re Asbestos, 2011 WL 3240827, at *3. To avail himself of this more lenient discovery rule, the plaintiff must satisfy the condition precedent of showing post-1979 exposure to the defendant's products containing asbestos.10 Plaintiff has not done so. There is no evidence that Mount Vernon-manufactured dryer felts (or other Mount Vernon asbestos products) were in use at the Alabama River Pulp mill where Morgan worked from 1978 through 1992. Instead, plaintiff relies heavily on the single occasion in the early 1980s when Morgan returned to the MacMillan Bloedel facility for a couple of days on assignment for Alabama River Pulp. But Morgan admitted that he did not see any dryer felts during that visit, and indeed was on a different floor of the paper mill from the dryer section. Morgan also conceded that he did not know what brand or brands of dryer felts were in use at that time, instead offering what he acknowledged was a guess that MacMillan Bloedel had continued using the same suppliers for its dryer felts during the intervening decade (approximately) since Morgan had last worked there. Morgan's testimony on this point is fairly summarized by his reasoning, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Morgan Dep. IV, at 244.) But if Morgan was not still employed at MacMillan Bloedel (he was not), and if he had not been employed there in many years (he had not), then how would he have any reason to know whether MacMillan Bloedel perceived the dryer felts used in its sheet-drying process as "broke" or not? He would not. Morgan had no information as to whether McMillan Bloedel was or was not satisfied with the performance of Mount Vernon's dryer felts in the post-1974 period. He had no information as to whether that company had continued to use Mount Vernon's dryer felts after 1974. He was simply speculating, with no rational foundation in facts personally known to him.

The infirmity with plaintiff's reliance on such testimony to oppose Mount Vernon's Motion for Summary Judgment and identify genuine issues of material fact for trial is glaring. "Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead, it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a primary goal of summary judgment." Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Garczynski v. Bradshaw, 573 F.3d 1158, 1165 (11th Cir. 2009) ("A `mere scintilla' of evidence is insufficient; the non-moving party must produce substantial evidence in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment."). Simply put, "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (citation omitted). This record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find that Morgan was ever exposed to Mount Vernon asbestos-containing products after May 19, 1979. In other words, no reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that Morgan's illness and death were caused by asbestos exposure that (i) was attributable to Mount Vernon and (ii) occurred after the effective date of the discovery rule of accrual fashioned by § 6-2-30(b).11 Accordingly, Mount Vernon is entitled to summary judgment on grounds that the record lacks sufficient evidence of product identification/causation within the applicable limitations period. See Lee v. Celotex Corp., 764 F.2d 1489, 1491 (11th Cir. 1985) (defendant entitled to summary judgment where "[t]he allegation that plaintiff was exposed to defendant's asbestos-containing product is not supported by reasonable inferences arising from the undisputed facts, but is based on speculation and conjecture that renders them mere guesses or possibilities").

IV. Conclusion.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant Mount Vernon Mills' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 276) is granted, and plaintiff's claims against that defendant are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Mount Vernon Mills as a party defendant.