MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, April 15, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 1. Defendant Frederick Meiswinkel, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant sustained its initial burden and plaintiffs did not produce admissible evidence that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the installation, use, handling and/or disturbance of asbestos-containing products or materials could create a safety hazard of secondary exposure for a member of a household of a non-employee. Even if decedent's injury was foreseeable, pursuant to Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 and Campbell v. Ford Motor Company (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th15, public policy dictates against a creation of a duty in the present matter. Plaintiffs initially did not oppose the portion of defendant's motion arguing plaintiffs cannot prevail on their products liability causes of action. Assuming without decidi