Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY State College, PA 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

State College, PA

844-777-2529

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

State College, PA

1376 Haymaker Road

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

State College, PA

[email protected]

Blog

Asbestos negligence claims after Third Circuit Decision to reject “Bare-Metal Defense”

Last week, in a precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a bright-line application of what has come to be known as the “bare-metal defense” in asbestos litigation. The holding is limited to claims of negligence under maritime law. Issues regarding strict liability claims and the government contractor defense were not before the Court.

What does this mean?

For years, manufacturers of equipment, such as boilers, turbine generators, pumps and valves, have asserted they cannot be held liable for exposures to asbestos that occurred during the removal and/or replacement of asbestos-containing component parts (e.g., insulation, gaskets and/or packing) during the repair and maintenance of the equipment. The equipment defendants’ argument has been that, essentially, all they manufactured and supplied was a “bare metal” machine, not the asbestos-containing products that exposed plaintiffs to asbestos and asbestos dust. In response, plaintiffs have long-argued that the defendant-manufacturers should, nevertheless, be liable for such exposures because the manufacturers knew (or at least reasonably should have known) that their equipment required the use of asbestos-containing component parts. Discovery in many cases has revealed drawings and operating manuals showing that the equipment manufacturers actually designed and specified the use of asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and other insulating products in conjunction with their equipment in order for the equipment to operate as intended. In other instances, equipment manufacturers even supplied the original asbestos-containing component parts. Still, many courts across the country, including the United States District Court for the Eastern-District of Pennsylvania in the MDL-875, In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), have routinely granted summary judgment in favor of equipment-manufacturing defendants, resulting in the outright dismissal of many plaintiffs’ lawsuits on the basis of the so-called “bare-metal defense”.

In rejecting the bright-line application of the “bare-metal defense, the Third Circuit concluded that “maritime law’s special solitude for the safety and protection of sailors counsels us to adopt a standard-based approach to the bare-metal defense,” permitting plaintiffs to recover against an equipment manufacturer “when the facts show the plaintiff’s injuries were a reasonably foreseeable result of the manufacturer’s conduct.” (See p. 19) While noting that the analysis “will necessarily be fact-specific,” the Third Circuit provided the following example of when an equipment manufacturer may be liable for a plaintiff’s injuries: If, at the time the manufacturer placed its equipment into the stream of commerce, it “reasonably could have known” (1) that asbestos is hazardous, and (2) that its product will be used with an asbestos-containing part, because “(a) the product was originally equipped with an asbestos containing part that could reasonably be expected to be replaced over the product’s lifetime, (b) the manufacturer specifically directed that the product be used with an asbestos-containing part, or (c) the product required an asbestos-containing part to function properly.” (See pp. 17-18) The Court noted that this list is not exclusive, and that there may be other facts on which liability may be based. (See p. 18)

I have personally represented plaintiffs and their family members in asbestos mesothelioma cases for nearly a decade, and this opinion is one of the best I have read. (Another being Tooey v. A.K. Steel Corporation, 81 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2013), in which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that plaintiffs can sue their former employers for exposures to asbestos in the workplace under certain circumstances.)

It will be interesting to see how the DeVries and McAfee cases, which were the subject of the Third Circuit’s opinion, proceed on remand. It will also be interesting to see how other courts respond to the “bare-metal defense,” going forward, in both maritime and land-based cases. For now, I predict the Third Circuit’s opinion could be a game-changer, and hopefully many more asbestos plaintiffs, including those who served in the United States Navy and those who worked at shipyards, such as the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (P.N.S.Y.), will be allowed their day in court. 

 For more information on asbestos exposure and its effects on you or a loved one visit our website or give us a call at 1-866-LOCKS LAW (866-562-5752).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4eB9cKPQZQ

Melanie Garner

Guest Author
October 9, 2017 Melanie Garner

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

Data Breaches: A primer on data breaches and what it means for consumers.

Next Entry

How the Drug Industry Crippled the Investigation Into the Opioid Crisis

Recent Entries

  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"
  • Dacthal Pesticide Ban: EPA Falls Short Again, Inaction Fails to Protect the Unborn 

Archive

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.