> Insights > Client Alert: Woo v. General Electric Co., et al.

No. 74458-5-I | April 3, 2017

> Insights > Client Alert: Woo v. General Electric Co., et al.

No. 74458-5-I | April 3, 2017

Client Alert: Woo v. General Electric Co., et al. No. 74458-5-I | April 3, 2017

April 20, 2017Client Alerts

Significance

The Washington State Court of Appeals narrowed the holding of Simonetta/Braaten stating that a manufacturer has a duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing products that it did not produce or supply where the manufacturer knew that the asbestos-containing products were necessary to the function of its own product.

Facts

Woo worked as an engineer for the Navy maintaining propulsion steam equipment in the 1940s and 1950s.  The equipment required the use of asbestos-containing thermal heat insulation, gaskets, and packing to properly function.  Defendant supplied the original gaskets installed in the turbines; but, the insulation, packing, and replacement gaskets were procured by the military from third-party manufacturers. 

Holding

The Court focused on a Technical Information Letter (“TIL”) issued by defendant in 1989 which advised customers of the potential locations of asbestos-containing materials” and provide information on “non-asbestos substitutes which are now commercially available.” Accordingly, the Court held that the Defendant had a duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing insulation, packing, and gaskets manufactured by others.

The Woo ruling narrows the 2008 Washington State Supreme Court’s holding that a manufacturer is not responsible for the asbestos contained in another manufacturer’s product that it did not place in the steam of commerce  Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wn.2d 341, 262-63 (2008); Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wn.2d 373 (2008).1

 

1 The Braaten Court did not reach the question of whether a duty to warn “might arise with respect to the danger of exposure to asbestos-containing products specified by the manufacturer to be applied to, in, or connected to their products, or required because of a peculiar, unusual, or unique design.”  165 Wn.2d at 397.

Related Practice Areas & Industries

View All Practice Areas & Industries

Related Locations

View All Locations

Related Professionals

View All Professionals

Recent News & Insights

  • Foley Mansfield Wins Forum Non Conveniens Motion in Cook County

    A Foley Mansfield team consisting of Chicago Office Managing Partner Demetra Arapakis Christos and Attorney Jessica Espinoza successfully argued a forum transfer on behalf of their client in an...

  • Dennis Vega and Joseph Angiolillo Named to 2025 New York Metro Super Lawyers List

    Foley Mansfield is proud to announce that two Partners in our New York office have been named to the 2025 New York Metro Super Lawyers list. Dennis Vega,...

  • New Orleans Attorney Ebony Morris Elevated to Partner

    10.27.26 – New Orleans, LA - Foley Mansfield is proud to announce the elevation of attorney Ebony S. Morris to Partner. Based in our New Orleans office, Ebony...

  • Snap Removal of a Cosmetic Talcum Powder Case to Federal Court Upheld Over Plaintiffs’ Challenge

    On October 10, 2025, the Honorable Judge Nancy J. Rosentengel of the Southern District of Illinois upheld a defendant’s snap removal of a cosmetic talcum powder case to...