Bourgeois et al v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ERROL J. BOURGEOIS, et al. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-526
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, et al. SECTION: “G”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Errol J. Bourgeois, Sr. and Mary Anne Bourgeois
Richardson’s (“Plaintiffs”) “Motion for Summary Judgment that Emanuel Bourgeois Had
Mesothelioma, that Emanuel Bourgeois’s Mesothelioma Was Caused by Exposure to Asbestos,
and that Mesothelioma Caused Emanuel Bourgeois’s Death.”1 In this litigation, Plaintiffs allege
Decedent Emanuel J. Bourgeois (“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 Decedent had mesothelioma, that Decedent’s
mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos, and that mesothelioma caused Decedent’s
1 Rec. Doc. 251.
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. 13.
4 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 337 Filed 07/21/26 Page 1 of 7

2
death.5 Defendants Avondale, Foster Wheeler LLC, General Electric Company, Paramount
Global, and American Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion.6
Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the
appliable law, the Court grants the motion. While the Court finds that Decedent was diagnosed
with mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos, which resulted in his death, there remain issues of
material fact as to the specific causation of Decedent’s mesothelioma, and the Court’s ruling does
not prevent any Defendant from presenting evidence or arguments to the jury regarding specific
causation.
I. Background
On February 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a petition against Avondale, Sparta Insurance
Company, Travelers Indemnity Company, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.7 On March 17, 2025, Avondale removed the case to
this Court.8 On April 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Supplemental and Amending Complaint
adding Bayer CropScience, Inc., Eagle, Inc., Foster-Wheeler LLC, General Electric Company,
Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., The McCarty Corporation, Paramount Global, Uniroyal, Inc.,
International Paper Company, and American Insurance Company as Defendants.9 On May 19,
2025, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental and Amending Complaint adding Liberty Mutual
5 Rec. Doc. 251.
6 Rec. Docs. 272, 275, 281.
7 Rec. Doc. 1-2.
8 Rec. Doc. 1.
9 Rec. Doc. 13. Plaintiffs’ claims against International Paper Company were dismissed with prejudice on
December 18, 2025. Rec. Doc. 144.
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 337 Filed 07/21/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Insurance Company, as the alleged insurer of Hopeman Brothers, Inc., as a Defendant.10 Avondale
has also filed crossclaims and a Third-Party Complaint naming numerous additional third-party
defendants.11
The Amended Complaint alleges that Decedent was employed by Avondale between 1963
and 2005, and during his employment he was allegedly exposed to asbestos.12 The Amended
Complaint alleges that Decedent was also exposed to asbestos through contact with his family
members who were employed at Avondale.13 The Amended Complaint states that these exposures
caused and/or contributed to Decedent’s development of mesothelioma and other related ill health
effects, and ultimately his death.14 The Amended Complaint states that Decedent was first
diagnosed with cancer on approximately October 31, 2024, and the diagnosis was confirmed as
mesothelioma on November 13, 2024.15 The Amended Complaint states that Decedent died on
November 12, 2024, as a result of the mesothelioma and complications therefrom.16 The Amended
Complaint states that Decedent was survived by his siblings, Errol Bourgeois and Mary Anne
Bourgeois Richardson.17
10 Rec. Doc. 77.
11 Rec. Docs. 4, 43, 86.
12 Rec. Doc. 13 at 2.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 5.
16 Id.
17 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 337 Filed 07/21/26 Page 3 of 7

4
On June 8, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion.18 On June 16, 2026, Avondale filed an
opposition to the motion.19 On June 16, 2026, Foster-Wheeler, General Electric, and Paramount
Global also filed an opposition to the motion.20 On June 18, 2026, American Insurance Company
joined Avondale’s opposition.21 On June 19, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in further
support of the motion.22
II. Parties Arguments
A. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Support of the Motion
Plaintiffs assert it is undisputed that Decedent had mesothelioma, his mesothelioma was
caused by his asbestos exposure, and his death was caused by mesothelioma.23 Plaintiffs cite
medical records confirming Decedent’s diagnosis of mesothelioma and reports and depositions
from both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ experts confirming Decedent’s diagnosis.24 Similarly,
Plaintiffs cite medical reports and depositions from the parties’ experts showing that there is no
dispute that Decedent’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos.25 Lastly, Plaintiffs cite
18 Rec. Doc. 251.
19 Rec. Doc. 272.
20 Rec. Doc. 275.
21 Rec. Doc. 293.
22 Rec. Doc. 296.
23 Rec. Doc. 251-1.
24 Id. at 1–2.
25 Id. at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 337 Filed 07/21/26 Page 4 of 7

5
the same evidence along with Decedent’s death certificate to establish that there is no dispute that
Decedent’s death was caused by his mesothelioma.26
B. Defendants’ Arguments in Opposition to the Motion
Avondale responds to Plaintiffs’ motion by first stating that it “takes no position on
Plaintiffs’ assertion that Emanuel Bourgeois was diagnosed with mesothelioma and that this illness
resulted in his death.”27 Avondale acknowledges that Plaintiffs do not appear to suggest that the
specific causation of the asbestos exposure should be determined by the instant motion.28
Nevertheless, Avondale contends that the “issue of whether Emanuel Bourgeois’s mesothelioma
was caused by exposure to asbestos . . . is a disputed question of fact.”29 Avondale asserts that the
Court should not prevent any defendant from disputing the source of the asbestos that caused
Decedent’s mesothelioma.30 Similarly, Defendants General Electric, Foster Wheeler, and
Paramount Global respond to Plaintiffs’ motion by stating they “do not oppose Plaintiffs’
contention that Emauel Bourgeois had mesothelioma nor that mesothelioma caused his death.”31
C. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Further Support of the Motion
In reply, Plaintiffs point out that the “oppositions filed by the Defendants reveal that they
do not actually dispute” the claims in the instant motion.32 Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
26 Id.
27 Rec. Doc. 272 at 1.
28 Id. at 2.
29 Id. at 1–2.
30 Id. at 2.
31 Rec. Doc. 275 at 1.
32 Rec. Doc. 296 at 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 337 Filed 07/21/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Defendants’ briefs merely “offer arguments about an issue on which Plaintiffs did not seek
summary judgment: specific causation.”33
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.”34 The court must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant.35 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.36 The
burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine
dispute.37 “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.”38
IV. Analysis
Plaintiffs assert that there is no genuine dispute of material facts that Decedent had
mesothelioma, his mesothelioma was caused by his asbestos exposure, and his death was caused
by mesothelioma. Plaintiffs cite multiple medical reports from both parties’ experts in addition to
other documents to support their assertion. Defendants by their own admission either “take[ ] no
position” or “do not oppose” Plaintiffs’ factual contentions regarding Decedent’s diagnosis, the
33 Id. at 2.
34 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
35 Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).
36 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
37 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986).
38 Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 337 Filed 07/21/26 Page 6 of 7

7
causation of said diagnosis, and the causation of Decedent’s death.39 However, the sources and
locations of his asbestos exposure, the particular asbestos-containing products to which he was
exposed, and the specific types of asbestos fibers to which he was exposed (i.e., specific causation),
as being the cause of Decedent’s mesothelioma is in dispute. Accordingly, the Court agrees with
Plaintiffs’ submission that there is no genuine dispute of material facts that Decedent had
mesothelioma, his mesothelioma was caused by his asbestos exposure, and his death was caused
by mesothelioma. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment on these issues.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Summary Judgment that
Emanuel Bourgeois Had Mesothelioma, that Emanuel Bourgeois’s Mesothelioma Was Caused by
Exposure to Asbestos, and that Mesothelioma Caused Emanuel Bourgeois’s Death”40 is
GRANTED. While the Court finds that Emanuel Bourgeois was diagnosed with mesothelioma
due to exposure to asbestos, which resulted in his death, there remain issues of material fact as to
the specific causation of Mr. Bourgeois’s mesothelioma, and the Court’s ruling does not prevent
any Defendant from presenting evidence or arguments to the jury regarding specific causation.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this day of June, 2026.
_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
39 Rec. Docs. 272, 279.
40 Rec. Doc. 251.
21st
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 337 Filed 07/21/26 Page 7 of 7