ST. LOUIS — A federal court in Missouri granted a motion to dismiss pertaining to several claims in an asbestos case against Johnson & Johnson and PTI Union.
The court granted PTI Union's motion to dismiss regarding the claims of strict liability, negligence and willful and wanton misconduct, but denied the motion insofar as it sought to prevent the plaintiffs from amending their complaint and sought to stay the proceedings.
The defendants sought to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the daughters of Carole Zicklin, who passed away from mesothelioma in 2021.
The plaintiffs, Diana Guthe and Adrianne Kanter, filed the suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri, against Johnson & Johnson, LTL Management LLC, and PTI Union LLC, alleging that Zicklin's mesothelioma resulted from prolonged exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powder products.
The case was subsequently removed to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Johnson & Johnson based on diversity jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit included four claims under Missouri state law: strict liability, negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and conspiracy.
PTI Union moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. They asserted that the plaintiffs’ allegations were too vague and lacked specific details on the products Zicklin used and PTI Union's connection to those products.
PTI Union also argued that the case should be stayed pending the outcome of a similar lawsuit in New York, and that the claims were barred under Missouri's contract specification doctrine, which shields manufacturers who comply with contract specifications from liability.
The court evaluated the motion under the standard set by Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, requiring the plaintiffs to present a plausible claim with sufficient factual content.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ petition lacked the necessary detail to connect PTI Union to specific products that allegedly caused Zicklin’s illness.
Therefore, the court granted PTI Union’s motion to dismiss the claims of strict liability and negligence due to insufficient product identification.
Regarding the willful and wanton misconduct claim, PTI Union argued that such a claim is not recognized as a separate cause of action under Missouri law in the context of product liability.
The court agreed, stating that while Missouri law recognizes intentional torts, willful and wanton misconduct is not independently actionable in product liability cases. Consequently, this claim was also dismissed.
"The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the contract specification defense is a fact-based inquiry that is more suited for a decision of summary judgment," U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey wrote in the order. "There are no allegations in the Petition that PTI Union was a contractor that manufactured products according to plans and specifications supplied by a purchaser. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue the contract specification defense does not apply because PTI Union should have known that including asbestos in talc products was dangerously unsafe. Based on the record before the Court, it is not clear that the contract specifications doctrine applies to PTI Union in this case."
Autrey wrote that the court did not find that filing an amended complaint would be futile based on the contract specifications doctrine.
Finally, PTI Union’s request to stay the case pending the resolution of the New York lawsuit was denied. The court found no sufficient reason to halt proceedings in Missouri.
The court granted PTI Union's motion to dismiss regarding the claims of strict liability, negligence, and willful and wanton misconduct, but denied the motion insofar as it sought to prevent the plaintiffs from amending their complaint and sought to stay the proceedings.
The plaintiffs were represented by Philip M. Kanayan and Jason M. Ministrelli of Karst and Von Oiste; and Carson C. Menges of the Menges Firm.
The defendants were represented by Tracy J. Cowan and Alejandro Patricio Frank of Lewis Brosbois; and Elizabeth Cummings and Caroline M. Tinsley of Tucker Ellis.
Attorneys declined to comment on the lawsuit.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number: 4:23-cv-01334