Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion Digests / Contractor Defense May Work in Asbestos Cases

Contractor Defense May Work in Asbestos Cases

The 4th Circuit reverses a district court order remanding to Virginia state court an asbestos products liability suit removed to federal court pursuant to the federal officer removal statute; the dis­trict court erred in remanding the case under precedent denying the government contractor defense in failure to warn cas­es, as the Eastern District of Virginia is “clearly an outlier” in so ruling.

A former boilermaker at Norfolk Na­val Shipyard, who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2014, sued in Newport News state court alleging failure to warn of asbestos hazards in products manufactured for the Navy by Foster Wheeler LLC and Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.

The federal officer removal statute al­lows a defendant to remove a case from state to federal court if the defendant establishes 1) it is a federal officer or a person acting under that officer; 2) a “col­orable federal defense”; and 3) the suit is for an act under color of office, which requires a causal nexus between the charged conduct and asserted official au­thority.

The government contractor defense only applies if a contractor’s obligations to the government conflict with state law such that the contractor may not com­ply with both. We must decide whether the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), holding the government contractor defense applicable in design defect cases, likewise shields defendants against failure to warn claims and thus provides a basis for federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442.

In this case, given the “thousands of as­bestos cases that have preceded” it in the Eastern District of Virginia, the district court determined that the government contractor defense is not available in fail­ure to warn cases.

However, the Eastern District of Vir­ginia is clearly an outlier in this regard. No other jurisdiction in the country to have considered the issue is in accord with the Eastern District of Virginia. In­deed, the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits have all applied the defense to failure to warn cases. Although we have not yet had the opportunity to consider this issue directly, we have recognized that these decisions of our sister circuits are reasoned soundly. The multidistrict litigation court for asbestos products also has applied the defense and allowed re­moval on this basis in failure to warn cas­es. The rationales identified in Boyle re­main applicable in failure to warn cases.

Given the weight of opposing prece­dent and the rationales supporting the defense, we now join the chorus and hold that the government contractor defense is available in failure to warn cases. We leave it to the district court to decide whether appellants have presented suffi­cient proof to warrant removal pursuant to § 1442.

Reversed and remanded.

Ripley v. Foster Wheeler LLC (Thacker) No. 15-1918, Nov. 1, 2016; USDC at New­port News, Va. (Allen) Erik D. Nadolink for appellants; William Harty for appel­lee. VLW 016-2-149, 9 pp.

VLW 016-2-149