After a long, drawn-out battle in the trial court, Michael Mattingly and Allen Eraut won a summary judgment motion in favor of a national pump manufacturer. The plaintiff had sued for damages resulting from asbestos exposure during the plaintiff's naval service four decades ago. In the appeal, the plaintiff argued for an expansion in the seminal asbestos cases, Simonetta v. Viad and Braaten v. Saberhagen, which would have significantly broadened defendants' liability for asbestos exposure. The plaintiff argued that the pump manufacturer's drawings and schematics of its pumps that listed parts such as gaskets and packing constituted a specification by the manufacturer for the Navy to use asbestos parts. The court of appeals did not agree, stating that plaintiff's theory was not compatible with the principles stated in Simonetta and Braaten. RMB's recognition that the plaintiff had failed to adequately preserve plaintiff's other primary argument on appeal hamstrung plaintiff's remaining chances for a successful result. You can see the full opinion affirming the summary judgment here. RMB worked closely with Laurie Hepler at Carroll, Burdick, & McDonough on the appeal.