How The 3rd Circ. Stripped Down The 'Bare Metal' Defense

Law360, New York (October 23, 2017, 3:54 PM EDT) -- Imagine this scenario: Company X manufactures a "bare metal" product. After the product is sold, the buyer adds defective asbestos-containing insulation manufactured by Company Y to the product, which is sold for its proper function. Unfortunately, an end user is then injured by the insulation manufactured by Company Y.  

The "bare metal" defense suggests that the original manufacturer, Company X, would not be liable for this injury. In practice, the intuitive logic of the bare metal defense is not always followed. Thus, the short answer to the question of the bare metal manufacturer's liability is, "it depends."

Some courts apply...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Beta
Ask a question!