In Accordance With 28 U.S.C.S. � 1333, Estate Administrators' Sea-Based Asbestos Claim Was To Be Tried Under Admiralty Jurisdiction, Applying Federal Maritime Law While Their Land-Based Claim Was To Be Tried Under Montana Law. All Claims Were To Be Trie
Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles, Administrators of the Estate of Charles Rich, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. A-C Product Liability Trust, et. al, Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82404
November 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff administrators of the estate of a decedent whose death was caused by exposure to asbestos sued defendant manufacturers, whose products contained asbestos. The administrators filed a demand for a jury and submitted briefs regarding choice of law.
OVERVIEW: In August, 2003, decedent was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. He died in July, 2006. His sickness and eventual death were allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos while he was a merchant seaman from 1945 to 1950 and while he worked as an engineer at a jet fuel refinery in Montana from 1955 to 1975. The land-based claim of injury due to asbestos at the refinery was clearly land-based and thus not subject to federal maritime substantive law. The sea-based claims were appropriately under admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law. The claim of asbestos injury at the refinery was not closely related to admiralty law, nor was it related to traditional maritime activity; therefore, substantive federal maritime law would not apply to the land-based claim. The court concluded that Montana law appropriately applied to the land-based claim because the injury occurred in Montana and Montana was the decedent's domicile for 20 years. The sea-based count was to be tried by the same jury. This would serve judicial economy, particularly since the administrators attributed the underlying injury to multiple product defendants.
OUTCOME: The sea-based claim was to be tried under the court's admiralty jurisdiction, applying federal maritime law. The land-based claim was to be tried under Montana law. All claims were to be tried before a single jury.
