DiCenzo v. A-Best Products: Asbestos Liability Case Analysis

Introduction and Case Background

DiCenzo v. A-Best Products Co., Inc. (2008) is a compilation of several different personal injury actions filed against approximately ninety different defendants. Such filings are not unusual in the products liability field, particularly in cases involving the manufacture, sale, and distribution of asbestos. The wide use of asbestos and its popularity as a fireproofing and insulating material resulted in many firms becoming involved in the asbestos industry. When it was later determined that asbestos was also a serious carcinogen, the high number of businesses involved in the industry served to complicate the litigation process considerably. The result was that many such cases were consolidated in order to avoid litigating the same issues repeatedly. The instant case presents a classic example of how and why asbestos cases are so readily consolidated by the courts.

The named plaintiff — one of ninety — was employed at a steel plant that used asbestos products supplied, but not manufactured, by a company known as George V. Hamilton, Inc. (Hamilton). The Hamilton Company has been involved in providing insulation and fireproofing supplies to commercial clients for nearly a hundred years and continues to do so. The plaintiff's estate filed the claim on his behalf, as he had died as a result of injuries caused by asbestos exposure. The basis of the claim was that Hamilton, as a distributor of asbestos products, should be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The complaint set forth a number of liability theories, including strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and conspiracy, among others.

The Temple v. Wean Retroactivity Question

The importance of this case cannot be overstated. Although the case had no legal application outside the State of Ohio, it had the potential for far-reaching practical effects. At issue was the possibility that the Ohio Supreme Court might decide to expand the liability of nonmanufacturing sellers with regard to the distribution of defective products. The plaintiffs in DiCenzo attempted to argue that the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in the earlier case of Temple v. Wean (1977) — which held that nonmanufacturing sellers could be held strictly liable for defective products they supplied — should be applied retroactively.

Hamilton and the other defendants argued that Temple should be applied only prospectively, and that defendant companies should not be held strictly liable for supplying asbestos products before 1977. The various businesses involved in the asbestos industry viewed the case with considerable interest, because if the Ohio Supreme Court decided to apply the Temple ruling retroactively, it could mean enormous financial exposure for any business associated with asbestos prior to 1977. Attorneys arguing on behalf of the asbestos industry warned that expanding the application of Temple would trigger a wave of bankruptcies. Under such circumstances, the asbestos industry was determined to contest the plaintiffs' arguments in DiCenzo, and did so all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Supreme Court's Chevron Analysis

In a 5–2 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the position argued by the asbestos industry. The Court applied the three-part prospective-application test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson (1971) to determine whether the plaintiffs in DiCenzo should prevail. The three prongs of the Chevron test are: (1) whether the decision establishes a new principle of law that was not clearly foreshadowed; (2) whether applying the decision retroactively will promote or hinder the purpose behind the decision; and (3) whether applying the decision retroactively will produce an inequitable result.

After exhaustively reviewing the history of products liability law in Ohio, the Court applied each Chevron prong to Temple. It determined that Temple marked a large step forward in products liability law when it held that suppliers could be liable for their role in distributing defective products. Finding this to be the case, the Court ruled that the first prong of the Chevron test was satisfied. It further ruled that the second prong was neutral but that the third prong revealed a definite inequity in retroactive application. The end result was that Temple should be applied prospectively only, and that the defendant suppliers named in DiCenzo could not be held liable for their pre-1977 conduct.

Conclusion

The asbestos litigation that exploded in American courts was a serious problem for the fireproofing and insulation industry and caused many otherwise viable companies to seek bankruptcy protection. In the case of George V. Hamilton, Inc., bankruptcy was averted and the company was able to make the necessary changes that allowed it to continue as a viable business entity. With any luck, the company will continue to adapt to the marketplace and avoid further involvement in products liability litigation.

References

Brickman, L. (1992). The asbestos litigation crisis: Is there a need for an administrative alternative? Cardozo Law Review, 1819–1889.

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971).

Cupp, R. L. (2003). Asbestos litigation and bankruptcy: A case study for ad hoc public policy limitations on joint and several liability. Pepperdine Law Review, 31–54.

DiCenzo v. A-Best Products Co., Inc., 120 Ohio St. 3d 149 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008).

Temple v. Wean, 104 Ohio St. 3d 660 (Ohio Supreme Court 1977).