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 that Michael Dandry, Jr. Was
Not Exposed to Asbestos Through His Father’s Employment with Johns-Manville and that
Michael Dandry, Jr.’s Father, Michael Dandry, Sr. Did Not Die from Mesothelioma.”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 Michael Dandry, Jr. was not exposed
to asbestos through his father’s employment with Johns-Manville and that Michael Dandry, Jr’s
1 Rec. Doc. 195.
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.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 12

2
father, Michael Dandry, Sr., did not die from mesothelioma.5 Defendants Avondale and Paramount
Global (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion.6 Having considered the motion, the
memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the
motion in part and denies the motion in part.
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
5 Rec. Doc. 195.
6 Rec. Docs. 218, 240.
7 Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 2.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 4.
11 Id. at 5.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 12

3
safety of persons on or around their property” for which there were clear “standards” requiring
protection for workers.12
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
Decedent’s father’s prior employment.16 Decedent’s father worked for a company called Johns-
Manville for eleven days in 1948.17 While working for Johns-Manville Decedent’s father was
allegedly subjected to “significant exposure to asbestos.”18 Decedent’s father’s lived at 5146
Fourth Street in Marrero, Louisiana, while employed with Johns-Manville.19 Decedent was born
in 1953, almost five years after the alleged Johns-Manville asbestos exposure of his father.20
12 Id.
13 Id. at 18.
14 Id. at 19.
15 Id.
16 Rec. Doc. 247 at 2.
17 Rec. Doc. 195-1 at 2.
18 Rec. Doc. 247 at 2.
19 Rec. Doc. 195-1 at 2.
20 Id. at 2–3.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 12

4
Further, the family home at the time of Decedent’s birth had moved to 407 Meyers Boulevard in
Marrero, Louisiana.21
On September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.22 On September 19, 2025, Avondale filed an Opposition to the Motion.23 On September
26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in further support of the Motion.24 On September 30, 2025,
Defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance and Bayer CropScience, Inc. joined Avondale’s
Opposition.25
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Support of their Motion
Plaintiffs assert there is “no genuine issue of material fact that: (1) that Michael Dandry, Jr.
was not exposed to asbestos through his father’s employment with Johns-Manville and (2) that
Michael Dandry, Jr’s father, Michael Dandry, Sr., did not die from mesothelioma[.]”26 Further,
Plaintiffs contend that “Defendants have failed to produce any evidence that Michael Dandry, Jr.
sustained exposure through his father’s work at Johns-Manville such that the exposure contributed
to his mesothelioma.”27
Plaintiffs submit that the reason Defendants have not provided any evidence concerning
Decedent’s exposure to asbestos from his father’s work is because this theory of exposure is
21 Id. at 2.
22 Rec. Doc. 195.
23 Rec. Doc. 247.
24 Rec. Doc. 271.
25 Rec. Docs. 285, 286.
26 Rec. Doc. 195-1 at 1.
27 Id. at 2.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 12

5
“impossible” in this case.28 While Plaintiffs concede that Decedent’s father worked at Johns-
Manville for eleven days in 1948, they point out that Decedent was not born until 1953.29 Further,
Decedent’s father had moved from the home he occupied during his tenure at Johns-Manville to a
different house by the time Decedent was born.30 Additionally, Plaintiffs offer that no expert has
“opined that Michael Dandry, Jr. sustained any exposures whatsoever through his father’s
employment at Johns-Manville.”31 Finally, Plaintiffs point out that Avondale’s own expert, Dr.
Bruce Case, testified that Decedent would not have sustained significant asbestos exposure from
his father’s Johns-Manville employment.32
Plaintiffs argue that in support of the Johns-Manville exposure theory Avondale has merely
introduced excerpts from Decedent’s medical records where Decedent indicated, and his
physicians agreed, that he may have had asbestos exposure through his father’s employment at
Johns-Manville.33 These excerpts also indicated that Decedent’s father “passed away” or “did die
from mesothelioma[.]”34 Plaintiffs assert that it was impossible for Decedent to sustain exposure
to asbestos through his father’s employment because he was not born at the time.35
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 3.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 4.
35 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 5 of 12

6
Further, Plaintiffs contend that Decedent’s father did not die from mesothelioma.36 This
contention is evidenced by the father’s death certificate indicating lung cancer as the cause of
death.37 Plaintiff’s point out that Avondale’s own expert, Dr. Bruce Case, distinguished lung cancer
from mesothelioma.38 Additionally, Dr. Rodney Landreneau explained that the cause of death
indicated on Decedent’s father’s death certificate was lung cancer and that due to the diagnostic
methods available at the time of death, mesothelioma would not have been misidentified as lung
cancer.39 Lastly, Plaintiffs state that “Defendants have not come forward with any expert medical
testimony establishing that Michael Dandry, Jr.’s father died from mesothelioma” and “expert
medical testimony is required to prove causation.”40
B. Avondale’s Arguments in Opposition of the Motion
Avondale asserts that “there are genuine issues of material fact regarding (1) whether Mr.
Dandry sustained exposures to asbestos from his father’s Johns-Manville work and (2) whether
his father died from mesothelioma.”41 Avondale contends that there is evidence that Decedent was
exposed to asbestos because of his father’s Johns-Manville employment and that his father died of
mesothelioma.42
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 5.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Rec. Doc. 247 at 2.
42 Id. at 4, 7.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 6 of 12

7
Avondale begins by claiming that the evidence shows that the Johns-Manville plant near
Marrero manufactured products containing asbestos, including “transite pipe containing
crocidolite asbestos and also distributed asbestos-containing scrap material throughout” the area.43
Further, Avondale introduces “the sick house theory,” which is regularly used by plaintiffs in
asbestos cases to establish exposure.44 Avondale points out that Plaintiffs’ expert Gerard Baril cites
the sick house theory in his report.45 Avondale cites Mr. Baril’s report, which states:
when workers wear their asbestos-contaminated clothing home from work, the
asbestos contaminates the home, and the dust settles on typical household surfaces,
including porous materials such as upholstery, bed linen, blankets, pillows, and
carpets. Any normal housekeeping activities would re-entrain the dust and result in
inhalation. This contamination persists even after the asbestos dust is no longer
being introduced into the home.46
Additionally, Avondale cites Mr. Baril’s deposition where he explains in detail how the sick
house theory works.47 During his deposition Mr. Baril also discussed how the asbestos brought
into the home could remain for an indeterminate amount of time and could move from one home
to another on contaminated personal property.48 Avondale asserts that Mr. Baril’s statements when
applied to the facts surrounding Decedent’s father’s Johns-Manville employment provides
evidence that Decedent could have been exposed to asbestos through said employment.49 Avondale
argues that Decedent’s father may have brought asbestos to his home on Fourth Street from Johns-
43 Id. at 2.
44 Id. at 4.
45 Id.; Rec. Doc. 247-1 at 42–44.
46 Id.
47 Rec. Docs. 247 at 5, 247-2 at 7–8.
48 Rec. Docs. 247 at 5, 247-2 at 8–9.
49 Rec. Doc. 247 at 6–7.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 7 of 12

8
Manville in 1948.50 Further, the asbestos may have been transferred to the Meyers Boulevard home
on Decedent’s father’s personal property.51 Finally, Decedent could have been exposed to said
asbestos while living at the Meyers Boulevard home.52
Avondale also asserts that “there is clearly an issue of fact [regarding Decedent’s father’s
cause of death] as Mr. Dandry reported to his own doctors that his father died from
mesothelioma.”53 Avondale states “[t]he fact that lung cancer is listed on [Decedent’s father’s]
death certificate is not admissible as it is well established that death certificates are not admissible
to prove cause of death.”54 In support of this factual dispute Avondale cites Dr. Bruce Case who
“testified that death certificates are not always accurate with regard to causes of death.”55
C. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Further Support of their Motion
In reply, Plaintiffs contend that Avondale has the burden of proving that Decedent was
exposed to asbestos from his father’s employment.56 Plaintiffs aver that this would require proving
that Decedent’s father was exposed to asbestos while employed at Johns-Manville and that said
asbestos was then carried home to Decedent.57 Plaintiffs state that Avondale has not come forward
with any evidence that establishes either of these points.58
50 Id. at 6.
51 Id.
52 Id.
53 Id. at 7.
54 Id.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Rec. Doc. 271 at 2.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 8 of 12

9
Further, Plaintiffs point out that Avondale admits that Mr. Baril did not offer any opinion
concerning whether Decedent was exposed to asbestos through his father’s work at Johns-
Manville.59 Plaintiffs argue that the “Fifth Circuit makes clear that expert testimony is required to
establish exposures to toxic substances. Avondale has not submitted such testimony.”60
Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that while Avondale may have presented evidence of Decedent’s
potential exposure from Johns-Manville facilities distributing asbestos containing materials near
his childhood residence, this “is not the subject of Plaintiffs’ motion.”61 Plaintiffs conclude this
point by stating they are not aware of any expert discussing sick house theory in relation to
Decedent’s exposure from his father’s employment.62
Regarding Decedent’s father’s cause of death, Plaintiffs contend that no expert has testified
that the father died from mesothelioma and Avondale does not dispute this.63 Further, “[t]he fact
that Michael Dandry, Jr. or other family members may have believed Michael Sr. died of
mesothelioma from things they heard is not sufficient.”64 Lastly, Plaintiffs submit that “[e]xpert
medical testimony is required to prove causation.”65
59 Id. at 3.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id. at 6.
63 Id. at 8.
64 Id.
65 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 9 of 12

10
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.”66 The court must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant.67 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.68 The
burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine
dispute.69 “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.”70
IV. Analysis
A. Asbestos Exposure through Decedent’s Father’s Johns-Manville Employment
Plaintiffs assert that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Decedent was not
exposed to asbestos through his father’s employment with Johns-Manville. Specifically, Plaintiffs
argue that to survive summary judgment regarding an issue of specific causation in a toxic-tort
case the non-movant must provide admissible expert testimony demonstrating the alleged
causation.71 However, Avondale contends that it has provided sufficient evidence by citing the
sick house theory and statements from Plaintiffs’ expert Gerard Baril.72 The Fifth Circuit has ruled
that “conclusory, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence cannot on their own
66 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
67 Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).
68 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
69 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986).
70 Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted).
71 Rec. Doc. 271 at 3 (citing Seaman v. Seacor Marine, LLC, 326 Fed. App’x 721, 729 (5th Cir. 2009)).
72 Rec. Doc. 247 at 4–6.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 10 of 12

11
create a genuine issue of material fact.”73 A scintilla of evidence is something less than the amount
of evidence necessary to support a reasonable finding of fact.74 Avondale has cited Mr. Baril’s
application of the sick house theory to Decedent’s exposure while working for Avondale and Mr.
Baril’s application of the sick house theory in other cases.75 Avondale argues that this is sufficient
evidence that the sick house theory is plausible theory of exposure through Decedent’s father’s
employment.76 The Court disagrees. Not only has Avondale failed to cite any expert testimony to
support its contention that the sick house theory applies here, but it has also failed to address Dr.
Bruce Case’s testimony refuting this claim.77 Thus, the Court finds that Avondale has merely
presented a scintilla of evidence to support its assertion that Decedent may have been exposed to
asbestos through his father’s Johns-Manville employment. Accordingly, the Court grants summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on this issue.
B. Decedent’s Father’s Cause of Death
Plaintiffs contend that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Decedent’s father
did not die from mesothelioma. In support of this contention, Plaintiffs submit Decedent’s father’s
death certificate listing lung cancer as the cause of death coupled with the testimony of Dr. Rodney
Landreneau stating that it would be unlikely for mesothelioma to be misidentified as lung cancer.
Avondale argues that a death certificate is not admissible to establish the cause of death. Here,
73 Favela v. Collier, 91 F.4th 1210, 1213 (5th Cir. 2024) (internal citations omitted).
74 Davis v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 14 F.3d 1082, 1086 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A rational trier of fact might conclude
that Davis’[s] allegations present a scintilla of evidence, but a mere scintilla is not enough to defeat a motion for
summary judgment.”).
75 Rec. Doc. 247 at 4.
76 Id. at 5–6.
77 Rec. Doc. 247.
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 11 of 12

12
Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute.78
Further, “Louisiana jurisprudence makes clear, [Louisiana statutory law] does not require a court
to accept the death certificate as proof of the cause of death when it is called into question in a
lawsuit. In fact, a death certificate is inadmissible for proving the cause of death in court[.]”79
Hence, absent any proof independent of Decedent’s father’s death certificate Plaintiffs have failed
to meet their burden to prove there is no genuine issue of material fact. Thus, the Court denies
summary judgment on the issue of Decedent’s father’s cause of death. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that
Michael Dandry, Jr. Was Not Exposed to Asbestos Through His Father’s Employment with Johns-
Manville and that Michael Dandry, Jr.’s Father, Michael Dandry, Sr. Did Not Die from
Mesothelioma.”80 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED
to the extent that it seeks summary judgment that Michael Dandry, Jr. was not exposed to asbestos
through his father’s employment with Johns-Manville. The motion is DENIED to the extent it
requests summary judgment that Michael Dandry, Sr. did not die from mesothelioma.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of October, 2025.
_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
78 See Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1445 (5th Cir. 1993).
79 Rivera v. Walmart, Inc., No. 19-12616, 2021 WL 2894148, at *3 (E.D. La. July 9, 2021) (citing
Alexander v. State, Dep't of Health and Hosps., 94-714, (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/7/94), 648 So. 2d 11, 14).
80 Rec. Doc. 195.
28th
Case 2:24-cv-00871-NJB-EJD Document 307 Filed 10/29/25 Page 12 of 12