MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

This case was removed in January of 2013 from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it became part of the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation (MDL 875). The basis of jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442).

Plaintiffs allege that John DeVries was exposed to asbestos from various products while serving in the U.S. Navy during the time period 1957 to 1960. After the completion of discovery, numerous defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish causation with respect to any product(s) for which it could be held liable. This Court determined that maritime law was applicable to the claims against each of the product manufacturer Defendants now opposing Plaintiffs' appeal1 and, after applying maritime law (including the so-called "bare metal defense" as applied under maritime law), granted each of these Defendants' motions.

Plaintiffs thereafter appealed, contending that this Court misapplied the maritime law "bare metal defense" and, in particular, that it failed to consider the viability of Plaintiffs' negligence claims. By way of Order dated February 5, 2016 (the "February 5th Order") (ECF No. 368 in D.C. No. 5:13-cv-474), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the case to this MDL Court for explicit consideration and clarification of the issues of whether this MDL Court (1) considered the negligence theory of liability when it granted summary judgment in its entirety to the product manufacturer defendants, (2) concluded that the "bare metal defense" applies to claims sounding in negligence, and (3) considered whether the circumstances of the present case warrant application of the legal rationale by which certain other courts' decisions (identified in the February 5th Order) exempted negligence claims from being barred by the defense. As directed by the February 5th Order, the Court hereby clarifies its application of the so-called "bare metal defense," as recognized by maritime law, to claims brought by Plaintiffs against the appealing product manufacturer Defendants.

I. Background and History Surrounding the MDL's Adoption of the Maritime Law "Bare Metal Defense"

By way of the decision in Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F.Supp.2d 791 (E.D.Pa. 2012) (Robreno, J.), this MDL Court adopted the so-called "bare metal defense" as applied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in two separate maritime law cases:2 Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.2005) and Stark v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 21 Fed.Appx. 371 (6th Cir.2001)3 — decisions consistent with, and bolstered by, the then-governing4 decisions on the issue under California and Washington state law. At the time of this MDL Court's decision in Conner, the Sixth Circuit was the only federal appellate court to have considered the so-called "bare metal defense" under maritime law (or any other law) in the context of asbestos litigation. The only two states whose highest courts had considered the issue in the context of asbestos litigation were California (in O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 (2012)) and Washington (in Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wn.2d 341, 197 P.3d 127 (Wash.2008), and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wn.2d 373, 198 P.3d 493 (Wash.2008)).5

In deciding to adopt the decisions of the Sixth Circuit, this MDL Court was mindful that — unlike the present case presented by the DeVries Plaintiffs — the bulk of the thousands of asbestos cases pending in the MDL originated in the Sixth Circuit and would be remanded for trial (after completion of the MDL pre-trial process) to a district court within the Sixth Circuit (specifically, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio — the same district in which Lindstrom and Stark were initially decided).6

It is true that, in general, matters of substantive federal law (such as maritime law) are applied by an MDL Court in accordance with the law of the Circuit in which it sits (in the case of this MDL, the law of the Third Circuit). See, e.g., Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants ("The Oil Field Cases"), 673 F.Supp.2d 358, 363 n. 3 (E.D.Pa.2009) (Robreno, J.) ("in cases where jurisdiction is based on federal question, this Court, as the transferee court, will apply federal law as interpreted by the Third Circuit"); In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1178 (D.C.Cir.1987); Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40-41 (2d Cir.1993) ("a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law, not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit"); In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050, 1055 (8th Cir.1996) (holding that "[w]hen analyzing questions of federal law, the transferee court should apply the law of the circuit in which it is located"); Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir. 1994); Murphy v. F.D.I.C., 208 F.3d 959, 965-66 (11th Cir.2000); see also In re Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation-Taj Mahal Litigation, 7 F.3d 357, 368 n. 8 (3d Cir.1993) (assuming without deciding that the district court correctly applied In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d at 1176, in holding that Third Circuit precedent would control interpretations of federal law, but that the law of the transferor circuit merited close consideration); Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (7th Cir.1993) (holding that a transferee court is not required to defer to the interpretation of federal law utilized by the transferor court and should, generally utilize its own independent judgment regarding the interpretation of federal law, and concluding that, "a transferee court should use the rule of the transferor forum," but only when there is a discrepancy in law between the two forums); McMasters v. U.S., 260 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir. 2001) (same). Importantly, however, the matter of the "bare metal defense" had never been squarely addressed by the Third Circuit in the context of asbestos litigation (or any other type of litigation). Therefore, the matter was one of "first impression" in the Third Circuit, for which there was no binding precedent.

This MDL Court was mindful that applying an interpretation of maritime law on the matter that was inconsistent with that of the Sixth Circuit would give rise to inconsistencies in the handling and outcome of the thousands of cases pending in the MDL, as some cases were being resolved in the MDL Court during the pre-trial phase (by way of summary judgment, settlement, etc.), while, pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and the Supreme Court decision in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998), those continuing on to trial in the transferor court would receive application of maritime law by a trial court located within the Sixth Circuit (which would, presumably, apply its own precedents interpreting maritime law on the matter). In all of its cases, the MDL Court has sought to ensure consistency in the handling of cases. See In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d at 1175-76 (citing uniformity in the application of federal law as a primary goal in the context of a discussion of choice-of-Circuit-law by federal transferee courts in cases transferred to an MDL court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407); Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d at 41 ("It would be unwieldy, if not impossible, for a court to apply differing rules of federal law to various related cases consolidated before it.").

Although the present case brought by the DeVries Plaintiffs is not part of the maritime docket of cases ("MARDOC"), the application of federal maritime law therein should be consistent with — and in uniformity with — that applied in the MARDOC cases. See id. In setting forth guidance on this matter, now-Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg wrote:

In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d at 1175-76(internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). In considering the adoption of Lindstrom's maritime law "bare metal defense," this MDL Court explained in Conner:

842 F.Supp.2d at 794 n. 4(emphasis added).

In sum, in the absence of Third Circuit precedent on this issue of maritime law (and the absence of any other precedent on the matter from any United States Court of Appeals), this court factored in (1) the goal of uniformity of application of maritime law (both within and beyond the MDL), (2) the fact that, at the time, the Sixth Circuit precedent of Lindstrom was (a) the only pronunciation of maritime law on the matter from any federal appellate court, and (b) the "majority rule" (i.e., in keeping with the rulings of the only two states whose highest courts had considered the issue, and also in keeping with an earlier recommendation by an MDL-875 magistrate judge), and (3) policy considerations surrounding products liability law. See 842 F.Supp.2d at 800-01. After doing so, it decided to adopt the holdings of Lindstrom in applying the maritime law "bare metal defense" in cases pending in MDL-875. Since its adoption of the Lindstrom rule in 2012, the MDL Court has consistently applied the rule in dozens of cases (and hundreds of summary judgment motions) governed by maritime law.

II. Application of the "Bare Metal Defense" Under Lindstrom's Pronunciation of Maritime Law

A. In General

Under maritime law, as set forth in Lindstrom, a plaintiff must show evidence of (sufficient) exposure to asbestos from a defendant's own "product" in order to hold a product manufacturer liable under any theory of liability (whether strict liability or negligence). See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492, 496-97. Necessarily, then, maritime law imposes no duty upon a product manufacturer to warn of the dangers associated with another manufacturer's "product" (or component part). See id. For this reason, there can be no liability in negligence for asbestos exposure arising from a product (or component part) that a manufacturer defendant did not manufacture or supply (as a plaintiff will not be able to establish the breach of any duty to warn about that other product).

To be sure, despite acknowledging the availability under maritime law of a negligence7 cause of action against a product manufacturer, see 424 F.3d at 492, the Lindstrom Court nonetheless explicitly stated that, under maritime law, a product manufacturer (such as a pump manufacturer) "cannot be held responsible for the asbestos contained in another product" (such as a gasket used in connection with a pump, but which the pump manufacturer neither manufactured nor supplied),8 424 F.3d at 496 (citing Stark, 21 Fed.Appx. at 381), and "cannot be held responsible for asbestos containing material that [ ] was incorporated into its product post-manufacture."9 Id. at 497 (citing Stark, 21 Fed. Appx. at 381). Intrinsic in these holdings are the conclusions that, in the maritime law regime, an asbestos product manufacturer defendant (1) has no "duty" to warn about a "product" that it did not manufacture or supply (and has a "duty" to warn only about "products" it manufactured or supplied), and, in keeping with this delineation of "duty," (2) can only be liable in negligence if there is evidence of (a sufficient amount of) exposure to asbestos from a "product" it manufactured or supplied, in part because the "causation" element is not satisfied (i.e., a "breach" of the "duty" to warn has only "caused" the injury at issue where the alleged asbestos exposure has arisen from a "product" for which the manufacturer defendant had a "duty" to warn). See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492, 496-97.10

In adopting the rules of Lindstrom, this MDL Court made clear in Conner that it was aware of and had considered the negligence claims of the plaintiffs therein — and that it was applying the Lindstrom rule(s) not only to the plaintiffs' strict liability claims, but also to their negligence claims. Specifically, the Conner opinion stated that, "[h]aving held as a matter of law that a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by the asbestos products that it did not manufacture or distribute...Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' products-liability claims based on strict liability and negligence." 842 F.Supp.2d at 803 (emphasis added). This MDL Court's subsequent application of Conner in dozens of cases (including the present case) has consistently applied the rules of Lindstrom and Conner as a bar to both types of claims.

B. Uniform Application to Negligence Claims and Strict Liability Claims

Maritime law (as set forth in Lindstrom and Stark) bars both negligent failure-to-warn claims and strict product liability claims11 in the absence of (sufficient) evidence of exposure to asbestos from the defendant's "product" (as defined by Lindstrom).12 To state this differently, Lindstrom holds that, under maritime law, a plaintiff must show evidence of (sufficient) exposure to asbestos from a defendant's own "product" in order to hold a product manufacturer liable under any theory of liability (whether strict liability or negligence).

It follows then that, under maritime law (unlike, for example, Pennsylvania law, as recently predicted by this MDL Court in Schwartz v. Abex Corp., 106 F.Supp.3d 626 (E.D.Pa.2015) (Robreno, J.)13), it is not necessary to analyze the two types of claims separately, as maritime law's definition of a "product" for which a defendant can be liable (under either theory of liability14) renders the defense equally and indistinguishably applicable to both types of claims. For this reason, this Court's decisions on Defendants' summary judgment motions did not analyze Plaintiff's negligence and strict liability claims separately. Instead, upon concluding that there was no evidence of exposure to asbestos from a given defendant's "product(s)," simultaneously and uniformly applied the "bare metal defense" to all claims against it.

In short, to be clear, Conner (the governing rule applied in the present case brought by the DeVries Plaintiffs) holds that, under maritime law (as set forth by Lindstrom and adopted by Conner), the so-called "defense" applies to both negligence and strict product liability claims (as asserted against a product manufacturer defendant15) and bars both types of claims where there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) of exposure to asbestos from the defendant's "product."

III. Maritime Law Versus State Law: Differing Applications of the "Bare Metal Defense"

Maritime law (as set forth in Lindstrom) has established a bright-line rule regarding the "product(s)" for which a product manufacturer can be liable. This rule requires that a plaintiff establish (sufficient) exposure to asbestos from the defendant's own "product" in order to maintain either a negligence or strict liability claim (thus holding (implicitly) that a product manufacturer defendant has no duty to warn about any product that is not its own "product").16 None of the circumstances or exceptions identified in the February 5th Order (and its citation to numerous decisions from other courts) impacts the analysis of Plaintiffs' maritime law claims against the present appealing Defendants (all of whom are product manufacturer defendants).17 This is because, with one exception, the cases cited by the February 5th Order all involved application of a given state's law, rather than maritime law. See Surre v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 831 F.Supp.2d 797 (S.D.N.Y.2011)(New York law); O'Neil, 53 Cal.4th 335, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 (California law); May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 446 Md. 1, 129 A.3d 984 (Md.2015)(Maryland law); Sparkman v. Goulds Pumps, Inc., No. 12-02957, 2015 WL 727937 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2015)(South Carolina law); In re New York City Asbestos Litig., 121 A.D.3d 230, 990 N.Y.S.2d 174 (2014)(New York law); Braaten, 165 Wn.2d 373, 198 P.3d 493 (Washington law); Schwartz, 106 F.Supp.3d 626 (Pennsylvania law); Macias, 175 Wn.2d 402, 282 P.3d 1069 (Washington law). The rule of law set forth in each of these cases reflects a policy determination of that particular state — a policy determination which need not be consistent with the policy determination underlying maritime law.18 See East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 864-66, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986) (absent a controlling statute, maritime law is "developed by the judiciary" and reflects, inter alia, "public policy judgment[s]"); Mack v. General Electric Co., 896 F.Supp.2d 333, 338 (E.D.Pa.2012) (Robreno, J.) (discussing policy considerations unique to maritime law); Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 25-19, 125 S.Ct. 385, 394-96, 160 L.Ed.2d 283 (2004)(same); Cobb Coin Co., Inc. v. Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 525 F.Supp. 186, 201-03 (S.D.Fla.1981) (same).

The sole maritime law case cited by the February 5th Order is Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 17 F.Supp.3d 760 (N.D.Ill. 2014), which was decided two years after this MDL Court's decision in Conner. The Court has reviewed Judge Gottschall's thorough and well-reasoned decision in Quirin and has identified the source of divergence between the Conner and Quirin decisions: Quirin is premised on Judge Gottschall's construction of the Lindstrom decision as one that "did not discuss a failure to warn claim," 17 F.Supp.3d at 768, leading Judge Gottschall to proceed with setting forth maritime law as to such a claim, while Conner has construed Lindstrom as already encompassing the rule of law on negligent failure-to-warn claims (as well as strict liability defective design/warning claims) — a rule consistent with those set forth regarding state law in O'Neil, Simonetta, and Braaten — decisions which each considered and relied upon Lindstrom in determining its respective rule of law regarding negligent failure-to-warn.19

In short, the rules of law surrounding the circumstances identified by the February 5th Order are creatures of state law — and determinations of state policy — that are not applicable under maritime law (as construed by this MDL Court to have been set forth in Lindstrom and Stark).

IV. Summary and Conclusion

In adopting the so-called "bare metal defense" under maritime law (as set forth in Lindstrom) and applying it to subsequent MDL cases (including the present case), this MDL Court (1) has considered plaintiffs' negligent failure-to-warn claims, (2) has determined that, when applicable, the defense (as set forth by Lindstrom) bars both strict liability and negligent failure-to-warn claims, and (3) has concluded that maritime law's application of the defense (as illustrated by Lindstrom) rejects potential liability of a product manufacturer in negligence for products (or component parts) that it did not manufacture or supply (i.e., rejects separate and different analyses of negligence liability and strict liability).