Home/D. Hawaii/In Re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases

In Re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases

715 F. Supp. 298, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16943, 1988 WL 159924
CourtDistrict Court, D. Hawaii
DecidedOctober 24, 1988
DocketCiv. 85-0447
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 715 F. Supp. 298 (In Re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases, 715 F. Supp. 298, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16943, 1988 WL 159924 (D. Haw. 1988).

Opinion

ORDER

BELLONI, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have made a motion to strike the government contract defense as a matter of law. After careful consideration, I have decided to grant that motion for the following reasons.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has previously decided in Nobriga v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 67 Haw. 157, 683 P.2d 389 (1984) that adherence to government specifications by an asbestos manufacturer was not an absolute defense to liability. The only question here is whether the recent United States Supreme Court opinion of Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988) displaces Hawaii state law.

State law cannot be preempted under the terms of Boyle unless the subject matter of the government contract touches an area of “uniquely federal interest” and there is a *300 “significant conflict” between state law and the federal interest.

Plaintiffs rely on a failure to warn theory of liability. The government specifications at issue in this case did not require nor did they forbid warnings of any kind. Clearly, the defendants could have complied with their state law-imposed duty to provide adequate warnings without breaching their government contract. Therefore, I find that there is no “significant conflict” presented between state law and any federal interest.

Moreover, the cases before me are clearly distinguishable from Boyle in that no “uniquely federal interests” are implicated. The federal interest in Boyle was the procurement of military equipment by the United States to be used by the armed forces. It is clear the Boyle opinion applies only to military equipment.

Asbestos insulation products are not military equipment. The procurement of supplies by the United States is not enough to immunize the manufacturer under Boyle.

In sum, I find that the Boyle government contract defense does not preempt settled Hawaii law as put forth in Nobriga. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defense is therefore granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

LTV Corp. v. Back (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)
201 B.R. 48 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Allison v. Merck and Co., Inc.
878 P.2d 948 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1994)
In Re Chateaugay Corp.
146 B.R. 339 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Kaiu v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
960 F.2d 806 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
In Re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases. (Four Cases) David K. Kaiu Lillian M. Kaiu v. Raymark Industries, Inc., a Corporation, Formerly Known as Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., and Fibreboard Corporation, Formerly Known as Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Antonia Beatrix Sawyer, Individually and as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Stephen Charles Sawyer, Deceased and as Guardian Ad Litem for Andrew John Sawyer, Corrina Antonia Sawyer, and Margaret Ann Sawyer, All Minor Children v. Raymark Industries, Inc., a Corporation, Formerly Known as Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., and Fibreboard Corporation, Formerly Known as Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Toledo Monderen Maria L. Monderen v. Raymark Industries, Inc., a Corporation, Formerly Known as Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., and Fibreboard Corporation, Formerly Known as Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Ted Mina, Personal Representative for the Estate of Mariano Gamurot, Deceased Domingo Del Rosario Alice C. Digos v. Fibreboard Corporation, Formerly Known as Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation a Delaware Corporation, and Raymark Industries, Inc., a Corporation, Formerly Known as Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Ted Mina, Personal Representative for the Estate of Mariano Gamurot, Deceased Domingo Del Rosario Alice C. Digos v. Raymark Industries, Inc., a Corporation, Formerly Known as Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., and Owens-Illinois, Inc.
960 F.2d 806 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
In Re Chateaugay Corp.
132 B.R. 818 (S.D. New York, 1991)
Ronald E. Nielsen v. George Diamond Vogel Paint Company, and United Coatings, Inc.
892 F.2d 1450 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Weitzman v. Eagle-Picher Industries
144 Misc. 2d 42 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation
715 F. Supp. 1167 (E.D. New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
715 F. Supp. 298, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16943, 1988 WL 159924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hawaii-federal-asbestos-cases-hid-1988.