> 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

  • Expansion of Ultra-Processed Food Litigation into Two New Jurisdictions

    Food manufacturers continue to face expanding litigation alleging injuries arising from the consumption of ultra-processed foods (“UPFs”). Following earlier actions, including Martinez in Pennsylvania and People of the...

  • Los Angeles Attorney Ashley W. Nagashima Elevated to Partner

    Foley Mansfield is proud to announce the elevation of attorney Ashley W. Nagashima to Partner. Based in the firm’s Los Angeles office, Ashley has distinguished herself as an...

  • Ebony Morris Hughes, Alaina Jraige, and Vivian Lin Selected as Foley Mansfield’s 2026 LCLD Fellow and Pathfinders

    Foley Mansfield is delighted to announce our 2026 participants in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD) professional development program. Partner Ebony Morris Hughes has been selected as...

  • Minneapolis Partner Elizabeth Sorenson Brotten Named as Co-Chair of 2027 IADC Convention

    Foley Mansfield is pleased to announce that Minneapolis Partner Elizabeth Sorenson Brotten will serve as Chair of the 2027 International Association of Defense Counsel Convention. Liz will take...