Page 44 - CLT020121

44 ¦ FEBRUARY 1, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

medicine, also opined that cumulative work- TRUSTS AND ESTATES
place exposure to asbestos is sufficient for me-
sothelioma to be designated as occupationally Court Granted Plaintiff’s Motion for
related. Thus, Zhang opined, plaintiff ’s cancer Summary Judgment in Dispute Over
was asbestos-related. The third witness, William
Ewing, opined that plaintiff ’s level of exposure Beneficiary
to asbestos at the automobile shop increased
his risk of developing mesothelioma. Based on CASE: Richard Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Richard
his review of plaintiff ’s deposition, he opined COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos during DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-01444
brake work at the auto shop. BMW moved to COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
exclude the witnesses’ testimony and for sum- DATE: January 15, 2021 • PAGES: 46
mary judgment. BMW argued that Frank’s the-
ory of cumulative causation, without regard to Plaintiff sued defendant on behalf of the es-
actual dose, was an untested theory. BMW also tate of Edward Richard for interpleader and
challenged what it saw as Zhang’s novel and declaratory relief, and asked the court to de-
untested theory that causal exposure analysis termine who was entitled to payments under a
was not necessary because virtually all meso- Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan and
theliomas are caused by asbestos exposure. Fi- Agreement. Both parties moved for summary
judgment. The court granted plaintiff ’s motion.
Plaintiff argued that defendant was not named
nally, BMW contended that Ewing lacked suffi- as a beneficiary to the SERP and that the clear
cient information to determine exposure effects language within the SERP named the Estate
on plaintiff and his subsequent illness. The dis- the beneficiary. The court agreed. It held that
trict court denied the motions, holding that the applying a 2010 beneficiary designation to the
proffered testimonies were relevant and admis- SERP would require ignoring obvious inconsis-
sible and that the issues in dispute were matters tencies to the intended scope of each document,
for a jury to consider. As a preliminary mat- as indicated by its express language. It reasoned
ter, the court found that all the witnesses could that the unambiguous language of the 2010
be qualified as experts. More importantly, the beneficiary designation required Edward Rich-
proffered expert testimonies were admissible to ard to do what he was not required to do under
establish both general and specific causation. the clear language of the SERP. Therefore, the
BMW failed to show a significant analytical gap court determined that the plain language of
between the experts’ opinions and the studies the 2010 beneficiary designation could not be
on which they relied in reaching their conclu- construed as a writing under the SERP, and
sions. The experts relied on published scientific that defendant lacked the designation in writ-
articles and various studies, as well as guidance ing necessary to be the beneficiary. The court
from federal agencies. Specific causation was a also noted that there was no admissible evidence
closer question, but the experts’ opinions were that Edward Richard intended to use the 2010
based upon sufficient facts or data and were the beneficiary designation to designate defendant
product of reliable principles and methods, ap- as the beneficiary. Therefore, the court granted
plied reliably to the facts of this case. plaintiff ’s summary judgment motion.

Looking for an accomplished experts?

ALMEperts.com

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune