In re Welding Fume Products

Full text of the Welding Fume case

On April 9, 2007, a federal district court dismissed the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) from Multi-District Litigation involving about 1,900 civil cases brought by plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of inhaling fumes given off by welding rods containing manganese. Plaintiffs brought claims of strict product liability, negligence, fraud, and conspiracy. Plaintiffs generally alleged that defendants knew of the danger of these welding rods, failed to warn the plaintiffs of the health hazards posed by inhaling manganese and conspired to affirmatively conceal these hazards from plaintiffs.

With one exception, all of the defendants named were companies that manufacture, supply, distribute, or consume welding rods. Plaintiffs also named MetLife, alleging that the insurance company helped the other defendants hide the dangers of manganese in welding fumes and raising theories of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, fraud, negligence, and negligent undertaking. MetLife sought and won summary judgment in its favor on all claims, and was dismissed as a party in this litigation.

The Court first found that, based upon the evidence submitted, the plaintiffs could not establish an essential element of proximate cause to sustain their claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, or fraudulent concealment. The Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

1. MetLife’s actions or omissions produced their injuries “in a natural and continuous sequence";

2. they would not have suffered their injuries but for MetLife’s behavior (or, at the very least, MetLife’s behavior substantially contributed to their having suffered injuries); and

3. an ordinarily prudent person could have reasonably foreseen that MetLife’s conduct would likely lead to their suffering some injury.

The Court dismissed these tort claims against Met Life and turned next to the civil conspiracy claims. The Court again examined the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and concluded that there was no evidence beyond conjecture and speculation to indicate that MetLife conspired with other defendants to conceal the dangers of manganese fumes. Accordingly, MetLife’s motion for summary judgment on the conspiracy claims was granted.

Next, the Court examined and dismissed claims of acting in concert and aiding and abetting, and that were raised by some of the defendants. The Court found that the evidence presented did not allow a reasonable jury to conclude that MetLife acted with the requisite state of mind for liability to attach under the theories of acting in concert or aiding and abetting. Again, required elements of these claims (assistance, encouragement, or concerted actions by MetLife) could only be reached by impermissible inference and speculation by a jury.

Finally, the Court reviewed and dismissed claims of negligent undertaking, finding that there was no evidence to support a finding that any plaintiff directly or indirectly relied upon, and was harmed by, any actions taken by MetLife.

For more information about this case, please contact Mark Chilson.