Antonio Crespo v. Henkel Corporation

The Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District*
of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0480n.06
07-2234
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO CRESPO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HENKEL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: DAUGHTREY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; ZATKOFF, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Antonio Crespo, appeals from the district court’s order
of summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Henkel Corporation. The district court
dismissed Crespo’s claims that the defendant’s negligence and failure to warn caused
Crespo’s injuries and that Henkel had breached duties owed to Crespo as a third-party
beneficiary of a contract between Henkel and Crespo’s employer, American Axle &
Manufacturing, Inc. Finding no basis upon which to overturn the district court’s decision,
we affirm.

-- 1 of 3 --

07-2234
Crespo v. Henkel Corporation
- 2 -
During the time of Crespo’s employment at American Axle, the company was party
to a “commodity management supplier agreement” with Henkel Corporation, under which
Henkel agreed to manage American Axle’s chemical commodities in order to “promote the
efficient procurement, inventory, delivery, and utilization” of those commodities. The
chemicals for which Henkel was responsible included metal-working fluids in tanks that
Crespo was assigned to clean. As it later turned out, the metal-working fluid was
contaminated with bacteria and fungi that allegedly caused Crespo to develop a serious
respiratory condition, hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
Crespo brought the current suit against Henkel under Michigan state law,
contending that Henkel was liable for his injuries because it failed adequately to maintain
the metal-working fluid, as required under the management contract with American Axle,
and failed to warn Crespo and other workers of the dangers posed by contaminated metal-
working fluid. In his complaint, Crespo asserted both a negligence claim and a claim for
recovery as a third-party beneficiary to the contract.
Henkel moved for summary judgment and, in a cogent and thorough opinion, the
district judge granted the defendant’s motion in full. Crespo now appeals that decision.
Before this court, he first asserts that the district court mistakenly held that Michigan tort
law requires that a third-party claim premised on negligence in the performance of a
contract must be based on the existence of a duty that is separate and distinct from those
arising under of the contract itself. Crespo further contends that the district court erred in

-- 2 of 3 --

07-2234
Crespo v. Henkel Corporation
- 3 -
concluding that he was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement between
his employer and the defendant. As did the district court, we find no basis for either of
these claims in our examination of Michigan state law. Moreover, the reasons supporting
the district court’s legal determinations were sufficiently set out in the court’s opinion
granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Hence, the issuance of a
separate, detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no
jurisprudential purpose. For that reason, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in
favor of the defendant, based on the analysis set out in the court’s opinion dated August
7, 2007.

-- 3 of 3 --