McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC
California Supreme Court
8 Cal. 4th 68, 105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 378, 225 P.3d 516 (2010)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1957, Terry McCann (plaintiff) lived in Oklahoma and worked for a construction company. He was allegedly exposed to asbestos during the installation of a boiler at an Oklahoma oil refinery. Foster Wheeler LLC (defendant), which was headquartered in New York, designed and manufactured the boiler for the refinery. McCann went on to work at various jobs in two different states before moving to California in 1975, and he continuously lived in California thereafter. In 2005, McCann was diagnosed with mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos. McCann sued Foster Wheeler in California state court, and his action was timely under the relevant California statute of limitations. Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred under the relevant Oklahoma statute of repose. The Oklahoma statute provided that any cause of action against a designer or constructor of an improvement to real property must be filed within 10 years of substantial completion of the improvement. The trial court applied Oklahoma law and dismissed Foster Wheeler as a defendant. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Oklahoma’s interest in its statute of repose was not significant as applied to Foster Wheeler, which was headquartered in New York, and that California’s interests would be more impaired if its statute of limitations was not applied. The Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (George, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.