Facts: Saberhagen motion for summary judgment

In its first appearance in the court below, Saberhagen moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Lunsford himself was not a "user or consumer" of a defective product, he was not entitled to strict liability coverage.

The trial court agreed and entered partial summary judgment. Lunsford appealed. On appeal, Saberhagen argued that the trial court correctly dismissed Lunsford’s strict product liability claims because he failed to show that he was a "user" or "consumer" of Brower-supplied asbestos products within the meaning of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.

This court reversed, holding that, "policy rationales support application of strict liability to a household family member of a user of an asbestos-containing product, if it is reasonably foreseeable that household members would be exposed in this manner." Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 125 Wn. App. 784, 793, 106 P.3d 808 (2005) (Lunsford I).

Whether Lunsford fit into that category was for the jury to decide—it was incorrect for the trial court to conclude as a matter of law that Saberhagen could not reasonably foresee that Lunsford would come into contact with its asbestos.