Constanza et al v. Sparta Insurance Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ERICA DANDRY CONSTANZA, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS CASE NO. 24-871
SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION: “G”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Erica Dandry Constanza and Monica Dandry Hallner’s
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Exposures from
Neighboring Properties.”1 In this litigation, Plaintiffs allege Decedent Michael P. Dandry, Jr.
(“Decedent”), while an employee for Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (“Avondale”),2 was exposed
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, sold, and/or handled by
Avondale and other parties.3 Plaintiffs allege this exposure caused and/or contributed to Decedent’s
development of mesothelioma and, ultimately, his death.4 Plaintiffs move the Court to find that
Defendants cannot prove Decedent sustained exposures to asbestos from neighboring properties.5
Defendants Avondale, Paramount Global, and Bayer CropScience, Inc. (collectively,
1 Rec. Doc. 211.
2 Huntington Ingalls, Inc. was formerly known as: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., Northrop
Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., Avondale Industries, Inc., Avondale Shipyard Inc., and Avondale Marine Ways, Inc.
3 Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 2. In addition to Avondale, Plaintiffs also named SPARTA Insurance Company, Bayer
CropScience, Inc., Foster-Wheeler, LLC, General Electric Company, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Taylor-Seidenbach,
Inc., Paramount Global, Uniroyal, Inc., International Paper Company, Eagle, Inc., Uniroyal Holding, Inc., and Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company as defendants.
4 Id.
5 Rec. Doc. 211.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 12

2
“Defendants”) oppose the motion.6 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and
opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
Plaintiffs allege Decedent was employed in various positions by Avondale between June 1,
1971, and August 16, 1971.7 During that time, Plaintiffs claim Decedent was exposed to asbestos
and asbestos-containing products on Avondale’s premises.8 Plaintiffs further assert Decedent was
exposed to asbestos carried home from his work at Avondale on his person, clothing, and other
items.9 Plaintiffs argue, as a result of breathing in these asbestos fibers, Decedent later developed
mesothelioma and other ill health effects, ultimately resulting in Decedent’s death.10 Plaintiffs
contend Defendants had “care, custody, and control of the asbestos, which asbestos was defective
and which presented an unreasonable risk of harm, which asbestos resulted in the injury of
[Decedent] and for which these defendants are strictly liable under Louisiana law.”11 Plaintiffs
claim “Avondale and its executive officers [ ] are answerable for the conduct of those handling
asbestos products on their premises” and that “Avondale failed to exercise reasonable care for the
safety of persons on or around their property” for which there were clear “standards” requiring
protection for workers.12
6 Rec. Docs. 243, 285, 286.
7 Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 2.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 4.
11 Id. at 5.
12 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 12

3
Plaintiffs also name numerous additional defendants who were in the business of
“manufacturing, fabricating, selling and/or distributing asbestos containing products.”13 Plaintiffs
allege that these defendants “sold, installed, removed and/or abated these products to and/or at
Avondale,” and Decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products as a result.14 Further,
Plaintiffs allege that these asbestos containing products were “unreasonably dangerous per se, were
defective in design, and constituted a breach of warranty from said manufacturers.”15
On the other hand, Defendants advance an alternate theory of asbestos exposure from other
sources, including on properties near Decedent’s childhood home and workplace.16 Decedent was
born in 1953, and the family home at the time of Decedent’s birth was 407 Meyers Boulevard in
Marrero, Louisiana.17 Decedent lived there until he was two years old.18 Decedent also worked at
a shoe repair shop located at 409 Meyers Boulevard.19 Both of these properties were part of a larger
property located in the 400 block of Myers Boulevard at the intersection of Fourth Street, which
was owned by Decedent’s grandfather.20 A driveway, parking lot, and courtyard area at the property
was made up of scrap material containing asbestos manufactured by Johns-Manville.21
13 Id. at 18.
14 Id. at 19.
15 Id.
16 Rec. Doc. 243.
17 Rec. Doc. 211-4 at 2.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Rec. Doc. 243-1 at 2.
21 Id. at 3–4.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 12

4
Reagan Maloney was hired by Avondale to take soil samples of this property.22 She took
samples in the driveway, parking lot, and yards of 411 Meyers Boulevard, 413 Meyers Boulevard,
413 ½ Meyers Boulevard, 423 Meyers Boulevard, and 5919 Fourth Street, as well as outside of
the fence of 5919 Fourth Street and near a canal adjacent to 413 ½ Meyers Boulevard.23 Of the
twenty soil samples collected, two did not contain asbestos fibers and were not considered
asbestos-containing material, and two were below the EPA 1% asbestos-containing material
threshold.24 All remaining sixteen samples were found to contain asbestos fibers greater than the
1% EPA threshold and are considered asbestos-containing material.25 The primary type of asbestos
identified was chysotile, with crocidolite being a secondary type of asbestos identified in thirteen
soil samples.26
On September 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.27 On September 23, 2025, Avondale filed an Opposition to the Motion.28 On September
26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in further support of the Motion.29 On September 30, 2025,
Defendants Paramount Global and Bayer CropScience, Inc. joined Avondale’s Opposition.30
22 Rec. Doc. 211-5.
23 Id. at 30.
24 Id. at 5.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Rec. Doc. 211.
28 Rec. Doc. 243.
29 Rec. Doc. 272.
30 Rec. Docs. 285, 286.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 12

5
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Support of their Motion
Plaintiffs assert the only information submitted by Avondale’s expert, Reagan Maloney, is
that in March 2025 the neighboring properties (411 Meyers Boulevard, 413 Meyers Boulevard,
413 ½ Meyers Boulevard, 423 Meyers Boulevard, and 5919 Fourth Street) contained some
amounts of asbestos.31 Plaintiffs contend Avondale has submitted no evidence that any of the
properties where Decedent lived or worked (407 and 409 Meyers Boulevard) contained asbestos.32
Plaintiffs contend Avondale has failed to submit any evidence that Decedent disturbed asbestos
scrap from another neighboring property or that he was ever in the area of any such property.33
Even assuming that such disturbance was established, Plaintiffs submit Avondale’s own expert
admitted that there exists no scientific data which would confirm that walking on such material
would even release asbestos fibers above general background concentrations.34 Therefore,
Plaintiffs request that the Court enter summary judgment finding that Defendants cannot prove
that Michael Dandry, Jr. sustained exposures to asbestos from the neighboring properties.35
B. Avondale’s Arguments in Opposition of the Motion
According to Avondale, Decedent’s sisters and daughters testified that the Dandry family
property located in the 400 block of Meyers Boulevard at the intersection of Fourth Street in
Marrero was one property owned by Michael Dandry, Jr.’s grandfather, Randolph Dandry.36
31 Rec. Doc. 211-1 at 5.
32 Id. at 5–6.
33 Id. at 6.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Rec. Doc. 243 at 3.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 12

6
Avondale contends the property included several family businesses, several homes, a communal
driveway/parking lot/courtyard area, and a separate shed/garage.37 Avondale asserts that the
testimony of Decedent’s sisters confirms that Decedent played in the driveway/courtyard area, they
played in a galvanized tub of water in the driveway area, they were always “in and out” of the
various Dandry businesses, and they continued to visit the family property even after moving to
Oak Street.38
Avondale contends the analysis of the material in the driveway/courtyard area of the
Dandry property demonstrated the continued presence of crocidolite asbestos and chrysotile
asbestos in multiple samples.39 Avondale notes that there was a previous soil asbestos analysis
conducted on the Dandry family property in 2007, which showed the same presence of crocidolite
and chrysotile asbestos on the property.40 Avondale contends its expert in industrial hygiene
reviewed the depositions of Decedent’s sisters and the results of the soil sampling at the Dandry
family property, and many other documents.41 Relying on the testimony of Decedent’s sister that
the scrap material was present when Decedent was living at the property, the expert opines that
Decedent would have had potential exposure to crocidolite asbestos while living at the Dandry
family complex, during visits to his grandparent’s house, and while working at the shoe repair shop
and grocery store on the property.42
37 Id.
38 Id. at 5.
39 Id. at 6.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id. at 7.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 12

7
According to Avondale, Plaintiffs’ argument that this testimony should be disregarded
because he did not have any specific data (i.e. air monitoring results obtained while Decedent was
being exposed to asbestos on the Dandry family property) is flawed.43 Avondale points out there
is also no scientific data available for any potential asbestos exposures of Decedent, including
those which allegedly occurred at the Avondale shipyard.44 Avondale submits if Plaintiffs’
argument regarding the lack of scientific data is accepted, then Plaintiffs will be unable to prove
Decedent was exposed to asbestos at any location.45
Avondale submits there are genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary
judgment on the issue of Decedent’s exposures from the property.46 Avondale contends the
evidence is clear Decedent sustained years of exposure to asbestos resulting from his residence,
visits, and employment at the Dandry family property.47 For these reasons, Avondale contends
Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.48
C. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Further Support of their Motion
In reply, Plaintiffs contend that Avondale does not cite to any evidence that the Dandry
property included the properties identified above as the “neighboring properties,” where the soil
sampling was done by Ms. Maloney.49 Plaintiffs contend the only addresses mentioned by
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id. at 10.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Rec. Doc. 272 at 3.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 7 of 12

8
Decedent’s sisters and daughters were the 407 Meyers address and the 409 Meyers address.50
Plaintiffs assert Ms. Maloney failed to test those addresses, instead testing 411 Meyers, 413
Meyers, 413 ½ Meyers, 423 Meyers, and 5919 Fourth Street.51
According to Plaintiffs, Avondale’s expert opined about the possibility of exposures but
only after qualifying this opinion by assuming certain conditions are met, such that Decedent drove
or walked in a courtyard area that had asbestos scrap.52 Plaintiffs submit Decedent’s sister’s
declaration that her brother had no reason to park or walk on the neighboring property where the
soil sampling was done.53 Moreover, Plaintiffs point out that the expert admitted there is no
scientific data indicating that walking on J-M scrap material would release asbestos fibers in excess
of general background concentrations.54 Plaintiffs contend a mere possibility of exposure to an
asbestos-containing product is not sufficient to meet Avondale’s burden of proof.55 Plaintiffs
submit Avondale lacks both factual proof of an actual disturbance of asbestos scrap as well as lack
of scientific proof that such disturbance releases asbestos fibers above background levels.56
III. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”57 The court must view the evidence in the
50 Id.
51 Id. at 4.
52 Id. at 8.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 9.
56 Id.
57 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 8 of 12

9
light most favorable to the nonmovant.58 Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the
basis for the motion; that is, the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact or facts.59 The
burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine
dispute.60 “A dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”61
IV. Analysis
Decedent was born in 1953, and the family home at the time of Decedent’s birth was 407
Meyers Boulevard in Marrero, Louisiana.62 Decedent lived there until he was two years old.63
Decedent also worked at a shoe repair shop located at 409 Meyers Boulevard.64 Both of these
properties were part of a larger property located in the 400 block of Myers Boulevard at the
intersection of Fourth Street, which was owned by Decedent’s grandfather.65 A driveway, parking
lot, and courtyard area at the property was made up of scrap material containing asbestos
manufactured by Johns-Manville.66
58 Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).
59 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
60 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87
(1986).
61 Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted).
62 Rec. Doc. 211-4 at 2.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 Rec. Doc. 243-1 at 2.
66 Id. at 3–4.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 9 of 12

10
Reagan Maloney was hired by Avondale to take soil samples of this property.67 She took
samples in the driveway, parking lot, and yards of 411 Meyers Boulevard, 413 Meyers Boulevard,
413 ½ Meyers Boulevard, 423 Meyers Boulevard, and 5919 Fourth Street, as well as outside of
the fence of 5919 Fourth Street and 413 ½ Meyers Boulevard near a canal.68 Of the twenty soil
samples collected, two did not contain asbestos fibers and were not considered asbestos-containing
material, and two were below the EPA 1% asbestos-containing material threshold.69 All remaining
sixteen samples were found to contain asbestos fibers greater than the 1% EPA threshold and are
considered asbestos-containing material.70 The primary type of asbestos identified was chysotile,
with crocidolite being a secondary type of asbestos identified in thirteen soil samples.71
Plaintiffs argue that this evidence should be excluded because Ms. Maloney did not test the
addresses where Decedent actually lived or worked. However, Decedent’s sisters and daughters
testified that the Dandry family property located in the 400 block of Meyers Boulevard at the
intersection of Fourth Street in Marrero was one property owned by Michael Dandry, Jr.’s
grandfather, Randolph Dandry.72 The testimony of Decedent’s sisters confirms that Decedent
played in the driveway/courtyard area, they played in a galvanized tub of water in the driveway
67 Rec. Doc. 211-5.
68 Id. at 30.
69 Id. at 5.
70 Id.
71 Id.
72 Rec. Doc. 243-4 (Legendre deposition) at pp. 13–18; Rec. Doc. 243-5 (Lonergan deposition) at pp. 13–18,
37–38; Rec. Doc. 243-6 (Constanza deposition) at pp. 14–16; Rec. Doc. 243-7 (Hallner deposition) at pp. 11–12.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 10 of 12

11
area, they were always “in and out” of the various Dandry businesses, and they continued to visit
the family property even after moving to Oak Street.73
James Shea, Avondale’s expert in industrial hygiene, reviewed the depositions of
Decedent’s sisters and the results of the soil sampling at the Dandry family property.74 Relying on
the testimony of Decedent’s sister that the scrap material was present when Decedent was living
at the property, Mr. Shea opines that Decedent would have had potential exposure to crocidolite
asbestos while living at the Dandry family complex, during visits to his grandparent’s house, and
while working at the shoe repair shop and grocery store on the property, if Decedent were engaged
in some sort of dust-producing activity.75
Plaintiffs rely on the Louisiana Fourth Circuit in Oddo v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., which
addressed the very issue of exposures to asbestos from driveways made of scrap from Johns-
Manville. In Oddo, the plaintiff testified he lived in a home for one year that had an asbestos
driveway made from Johns-Manville scrap.76 The plaintiff testified that he drove over it daily and
that he actually raked the driveway and passed over it with his lawn mower, creating dust.77
Following a trial, the jury found that Johns-Manville was negligent, but did not assign a percentage
of fault to Johns-Manville.78 Reviewing this evidence on appeal, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit
found:
73 Rec. Doc. 243-4 (Legendre deposition) at pp. 15, 17, 21, 22, 26; Rec. Doc. 243-5 (Lonergan deposition)
at pp. 19, 34, 38.
74 Rec. Doc. 211-9 (Shea deposition).
75 Id. at 52, 75–76.
76 Oddo v. Asbestos Corp., 2014-0004 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/20/15), 173 So. 3d 1192, 1214, writ denied, 2015-
1712 (La. 11/6/15), 180 So. 3d 308.
77 Id. at 1215.
78 Id. at 1213.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 11 of 12

12
A preponderance of the evidence fails to demonstrate that this “disturbance” of the
driveway exposed Mr. Oddo to above-background levels of asbestos. Given the fact
that he lived at this address for only one year and the lack of evidence as to the
extent of exposure from the driveway, we do not find that Mr. Oddo’s exposure to
asbestos from Johns–Manville was significant enough to be a substantial
contributing cause of his mesothelioma.79
Oddo is distinguishable from the instant case, where the appellate court was reviewing a
jury’s verdict. This case is at the summary judgment stage. Avondale has presented some evidence
to show that Decedent was exposed to asbestos at the property. Plaintiffs cite to evidence that these
exposures likely were not above background levels. This evidence must be weighed by a jury.
Accordingly, there are genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment on the issue
of Decedent’s exposures from the property.80 Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Exposures from Neighboring Properties”81 is DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
79 Id. at 1215.
80 Id. at 10.
81 Rec. Doc. 211.
10th
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 316 Filed 11/10/25 Page 12 of 12