Sometimes new decisions can make or break a case, if the court has time to review the decisions before issuing its own. If not, it pays to know the rules on filing a motion to reconsider. In Sparkman v. Goulds Pumps, Inc., D.S.C. No. 2:12-CV-02957, 2015 WL 727937 (Feb. 19, 2015), the District Court Judge reconsidered his earlier decision granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs in an asbestos case, in which the decedent contracted mesothelioma. The big issue on summary judgment was that the decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos in replacement parts used on the defendant's products. No court in South Carolina had resolved whether a defendant could be liable in that situation because that particular defendant did not manufacture the asbestos-containing part causing the harm. The District Court originally granted summary judgment because the court determined that the "bare metal defense" would be recognized in South Carolina.
As the court explained, "[t]he ‘bare metal’ defense, an affirmative defense, provides that a manufacturer has no duty to warn about potential dangers from exposure to a part of its product if the manufacturer did not make or distribute the part." The defense stems from the claim that mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos contained in the replacement parts, and not the original product as manufactured by the defendant. A majority of jurisdictions nationwide recognize the bare metal defense and will not impose liability upon manufacturers for the damages caused by asbestos-containing products produced and distributed by other entities. Some jurisdictions will impose liability under the rationale that if the manufacturer knew that asbestos-containing parts would likely be used on their product, the manufacturer had a duty to warn the end user. South Carolina became one such state, although not through its highest court. South Carolina apparently has one judge that handles the state's asbestos docket, and he ruled that a cause of action exists if the replacement parts keep the original product in essentially the same condition as when it left the defendant's hands.
Unfortunately, the District Court was made aware of the state court's decision just after releasing its own decision granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The state court decision was published just 19 days prior, but 12 days before the District Court closed for a week during the holidays. Fortunately, the plaintiffs recognized that the attempt to notify the court failed and they timely filed a motion for reconsideration. While an issue like that can eventually get sorted out on appeal, that costs time and money. A properly-framed motion for reconsideration is an expedient method to allow the trial court the opportunity to correct its decision based on new decisions which directly impact the decision.
