On Jan. 18, 2010, the NAM filed an amicus brief in a California appellate court arguing that manufacturers should not have a new legal duty to warn customers about the risks that might arise from products made by other manufacturers that are used in conjunction with their products. The plaintiffs tried to make a manufacturer liable for asbestos products like insulation and gaskets that were added to the manufacturer's valves. Our brief showed how such a duty is inconsistent with California law and with most courts around the country, and how creating this new duty raises serious public policy questions that should be considered in the context of the overall asbestos litigation environment. The new rule of liability would be unsound public policy, because economic loss should be borne by the party that caused it, and because the manufacturer of the product that produced the risk is in the best position to warn about that risk. The proposed rule would fuel claims against defendants and make asbestos litigation even worse than it already is, particularly in California which is a magnet for asbestos plaintiffs.
On April 22, 2010, the California court agreed. It overturned a $5.6 million jury award, ruling that a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn about products made by other manufacturers, and there was no evidence the defendant provided the asbestos materials that caused the injury. In addition, a manufacturer of a component part has no duty to inspect the parts of other manufacturers that may be incorporated into an integrated product, since the manufacturer has no control over those other parts.