Introduction
Asbestos exposure through brake pads has long been recognized as a serious health risk, particularly for auto mechanics and vehicle industry workers. However, not all brake pads are treated equally under the law. A significant legal distinction exists between original equipment manufacturer (OEM) brake pads and aftermarket brake pads when it comes to pursuing asbestos-related claims. Understanding these legal nuances is crucial for victims seeking compensation.
This article explores the legal differences between OEM and aftermarket brake pad asbestos exposure claims, including liability challenges, evidentiary hurdles, and strategic considerations for plaintiffs.
What Are OEM and Aftermarket Brake Pads?
OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) brake pads are parts installed by the vehicle manufacturer at the time of production or supplied directly by the same manufacturer for replacement.
Aftermarket brake pads, on the other hand, are produced by third-party manufacturers not affiliated with the original vehicle maker. These parts may differ in material composition, design, and performance.
The distinction becomes crucial in asbestos exposure cases because each type has a different supply chain and liability profile.
Historical Use of Asbestos in Brake Pads
From the 1940s through the late 1980s, both OEM and aftermarket brake pads commonly contained chrysotile asbestos, a mineral used for its heat resistance and friction properties. Asbestos fibers were released during brake repair, grinding, and replacement tasks, posing a major health risk, especially to auto mechanics.
Many companies phased out asbestos in friction products after mounting evidence of its health risks and regulatory actions. However, aftermarket parts—especially those manufactured overseas—continued to use asbestos even after OEMs transitioned to safer materials.
Key Takeaway: Aftermarket brake pads may have posed asbestos exposure risks longer than OEM parts due to regulatory loopholes and lack of oversight.
Legal Framework for Asbestos Exposure Claims
Asbestos-related personal injury claims are typically brought under product liability law, which can include the following legal theories:
- Negligence: Failing to warn about known dangers
- Strict liability: Holding manufacturers liable regardless of fault
- Breach of warranty: Failure to meet product safety expectations
Whether the brake pad was OEM or aftermarket affects how these legal theories are applied.
OEM Brake Pad Exposure Claims
1. Stronger Chain of Custody
OEM products come with detailed manufacturing and distribution records, which can help plaintiffs:
- Identify specific exposure sources
- Connect illness to specific products
- Prove usage through dealership or repair shop documentation
2. Established Defendants
Many OEM manufacturers are well-known, large companies with extensive litigation histories. They may already be part of asbestos trust funds established through bankruptcy settlements. This can streamline the claims process.
3. Evidentiary Advantage
Courts may be more inclined to accept OEM exposure claims because:
- The origin and specifications of the product are clearer
- Corporate documents and memos may reveal internal knowledge of asbestos risks
Example: Ford and General Motors have faced thousands of asbestos lawsuits due to OEM brake components.
Aftermarket Brake Pad Exposure Claims
1. Challenges Identifying the Manufacturer
Aftermarket parts often come from small or international suppliers. Plaintiffs may struggle to:
- Prove where the part was made
- Identify the exact brand used
- Locate responsible parties (some may no longer be in business)
2. Jurisdictional Issues
Aftermarket manufacturers may be based overseas, complicating:
- Jurisdiction
- Service of process
- Enforcement of judgments
This creates significant legal hurdles and may deter litigation unless U.S.-based distributors can be held liable.
3. Less Documentation
Many mechanics and consumers do not retain packaging or purchase records for aftermarket parts. This lack of proof can undermine a plaintiff’s case unless witnesses or repair logs can confirm part usage.
4. Product Safety Standards
Some aftermarket parts may not meet the same safety and regulatory standards as OEM parts. This could support a negligence or defective design claim, but only if causation is proven.
Differences in Legal Liability
| Legal Element | OEM Brake Pads | Aftermarket Brake Pads |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer Location | Primarily U.S.-based | Frequently foreign-based (e.g., China, India) |
| Documentation | Typically well-documented | Often limited or nonexistent |
| Corporate History | Extensive legal precedent and lawsuits | Varies by company; some defunct or obscure |
| Trust Fund Eligibility | Often eligible via asbestos trust funds | Limited eligibility due to lack of recognition |
| Recall or Warnings | Some have issued safety bulletins | Rare due to less regulation |
Impact on Compensation
Victims exposed to OEM asbestos-containing parts may access:
- Asbestos trust funds (e.g., GM, Chrysler)
- Civil litigation settlements
- VA benefits, if applicable
For aftermarket exposure, compensation is harder to secure unless:
- The manufacturer or importer can be identified
- A retailer or distributor is proven liable
- Product testing links asbestos to the brand used
Important: Some courts have held distributors and retailers liable when manufacturers cannot be sued, using the legal doctrine of “stream of commerce.”
Key Legal Precedents
- O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) – California Supreme Court ruled that product manufacturers aren’t necessarily liable for third-party replacement parts, unless they were integral to product use and foreseeable.
- Sherman v. Hennessy Industries (2015) – An appellate court found that an equipment maker could be liable if their machines were intended for use with asbestos-containing brake components.
These cases highlight how OEM exposure claims may receive more legal protection compared to aftermarket parts, unless clear evidence of foreseeability or negligence is shown.
Proving Aftermarket Exposure: Legal Strategies
To succeed in an aftermarket brake pad claim, attorneys often rely on:
- Expert testimony on part composition and exposure pathways
- Workplace records or coworker affidavits
- Parts catalogs, invoices, or mechanic logs
- Testing of retained parts or brake dust samples
Plaintiffs must prove not just exposure, but that the exposure came from a specific product tied to the defendant.
Regulatory Oversight and Gaps
While the U.S. EPA banned most asbestos products, friction products like brake pads were not fully prohibited until the 2016 TSCA amendment, with phase-outs extending to 2024. However, aftermarket imports continued to enter the U.S. containing asbestos, due to:
- Lax customs enforcement
- Mislabeling
- Regulatory exemptions
This means that even recent exposure may occur with aftermarket parts sold post-2000s.
Statute of Limitations: OEM vs. Aftermarket Claims
Asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma often appear decades after exposure. Most states allow claims to be filed 1–3 years from diagnosis, not exposure.
However, plaintiffs must still prove:
- Product identification
- Defendant’s role in the supply chain
- Causation between exposure and illness
The clearer the link (as with OEM parts), the stronger the legal position.
Conclusion
The legal path for asbestos exposure claims differs significantly between OEM and aftermarket brake pads. OEM claims benefit from established corporate defendants, better documentation, and often access to trust funds. Aftermarket claims, while valid, face more challenges in proving liability and securing compensation.
Victims of asbestos exposure—especially auto mechanics and brake technicians—should consult an experienced asbestos attorney to assess the specific exposure source and legal options. Identifying whether the brake pads involved were OEM or aftermarket can shape the entire outcome of a case.
References
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Asbestos Regulations.
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Asbestos in Brake and Clutch Repair.
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (2012).
- Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9182.
- U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Asbestos Exposure and Products.
- Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). Brake Pad Asbestos Risks.
