Dismissal Affirmed by Oregon Court of Appeals

In Greer v. Ace Hardware Corp. et al, __ Or App __ (Apr. 10, 2013), the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of RMB’s client, an alleged supplier of asbestos-containing materials. Plaintiff brought suit against a number of defendants alleging they were responsible for his mesothelioma by manufacturing and supplying products containing asbestos. Against RMB’s client, plaintiff alleged exposure over a nine-year period to products supplied by the client. However, though plaintiff recalled during his deposition general types of products he allegedly purchased from RMB’s client, plaintiff could not recall the brand names of those products. In its motion for summary judgment, RMB argued that plaintiff could not establish that the products he purchased contained asbestos. In response to the summary judgment motion, plaintiff submitted several declarations regarding the types of products RMB’s client sold and the types of products purchased for use at plaintiff’s construction sites. Plaintiff also submitted his own declaration stating his certainty that he used asbestos-containing products supplied by RMB’s client.

The trial court granted RMB’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed and held that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact because he failed to identify specific asbestos-containing products allegedly supplied by RMB’s client. Plaintiff’s declaration that “some” of the products he allegedly purchased contained asbestos amounted “to little more than paraphrasing of the ultimate facts” alleged in the complaint. As such, the summary judgment in favor of RMB’s client was upheld.

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A143981.pdf

Share this

Related Articles


Need more information or want
to get in touch?