The Washington Supreme Court recently issued opinions in the companion cases of Simonetta v. Viad Corp. and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, which overruled broad duty to warn rulings in the underlying Court of Appeals’ opinions. Simonetta v. Viad Corp., No. 80076-6, 2008 WL 5175068 (Dec. 11, 2008); Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, , No. 80251-3, 2008 WL 5175083 (Dec. 11, 2008). Both cases involved duty to warn claims related to asbestos exposure that were brought by individuals that had worked on an evaporator (Simonetta) and pumps and valves (Braaten) that were insulated with asbestos. The evaporator manufacturer and the pump and valve manufacturers named as defendants did not manufacture, sell, or supply the asbestos insulation at issue. Id.

Because the asbestos exposures occurred before the passage of Washington’s Product Liability Act, the Washington Court of Appeals analyzed Simonetta and Braaten under common law theories of negligence and strict liability. Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 137 Wn.App.15, 23-25, 31-32 (2007); Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 137 Wn.App.32, 46-49 (2007). In the process, the Court of Appeals expanded the common law duty to warn in Washington by requiring a manufacturer to warn of hazards that might be associated with not only its own product, but also of the danger from asbestos insulation applied after the product left the manufacturer’s control. Id. While not directly addressed by the Court of Appeals, this duty had the potential to dramatically expand the duty to warn in Washington outside of the context of asbestos litigation, by requiring manufacturers to anticipate and warn of the harm potentially caused by other manufacturer’s products. As a result, these cases were closely watched in jurisdictions throughout the country.

In reversing the potentially expansive duty to warn found by the Court of Appeals, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that under either a negligence or strict liability theory manufacturers are generally not liable for failure to warn of the dangers arising from the use of their product in conjunction with another product not manufactured, sold, or otherwise supplied by them. Simonetta, 2008 WL 5175068 *4-*6, *10; Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 2008 WL 5175083 *3-*10. Put another way, rather than applying a form of foreseeable use analysis, the Court held that the duty to warn in relation to a particular product is generally limited to the product manufacturer and those in the distribution chain. Id. Three justices dissented from these holdings, arguing that a manufacturer should have a duty to warn of the hazards associated with third-party products that the manufacturer knew or should have known would be used with its own product. Simonetta, 2008 WL 5175068 *11-*15; Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 2008 WL 5175083 *10.