Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 23 asbestos decisions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (1973–2020). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Pennsylvania
• Kind of court: State supreme court

Decisions

• Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (2020). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order for percentage apportionment, holding that liability among strictly liable asbestos defendants John Crane and Brand is apportioned per capita (a win for the Roveranos). It also held that bankruptcy trusts may be put on the verdict sheet on appropriate requests and proofs, and remanded for a new trial on apportionment (a win for the defendants on that issue).
• Rost v. Ford Motor Co. (2016). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the Rost estates against Ford Motor Company, holding that the causation testimony was proper and that, although consolidation with two other cases was error, Ford showed no prejudice.
• Howard v. AW Chesterton Co. (2013). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on the plaintiffs' concession, vacated the Superior Court's order and reversed it, reinstating the trial court's summary judgment for the defendants (Monsey, Ace Hardware, Pecora).
• Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the plaintiff's 'any-exposure' expert opinion under Frye, which restored the basis for summary judgment for Allied Signal and Ford against the executrix; the case was remanded to consider any remaining preserved issues.
• Daley v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2012). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's order reversing summary judgment for U.S. Supply and Duro-Dyne, allowing Daley's mesothelioma suit to proceed, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Tooey v. AK Steel Corporation (Western District, 2012). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the trial court's denial of summary judgment, so the plaintiffs (Tooey and Landis and their spouses) may sue their employers at common law and the employers lost.
• Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order affirming summary judgment for Union Carbide, Certainteed and Allied Signal, disapproved Quate v. American Standard, and sent the cases back so Summers and Nybeck could proceed.
• Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corporation (Eastern District, 2009). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's en banc order affirming summary judgment for John Crane, Inc., and remanded, so the widows of Kenneth Abrams and John Shaw may proceed against Crane.
• Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts Company (Eastern District, 2007). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's order, which had reversed summary judgment for V-J Auto Parts, held that the trial court did not err in applying the frequency, regularity, proximity assessment, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Gibson v. Workers'compensation Appeal Board (Western District, 2004). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and left in place the Board's reversal of the death-benefits award, so Armco won and the widow, Kathy Gibson, lost.
• Baker v. ACandS (2000). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, holding that ACandS received only a $30,000 pro tanto set-off for the Manville Trust's share, so the Bakers (plaintiffs) won and ACandS owed $850,000 instead of $440,000.
• Sporio v. Wcab (Songer Const.) (1998). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and held that the widow, Madeline Sporio, could collect death benefits for her husband's mesothelioma death, against Songer Construction and the other employers.
• McNeil v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order to the extent it allowed a new trial on the lung cancer claim (a win for Owens Corning), and affirmed a new trial limited to the McNeils' non-cancer injury claims (a win for the McNeils).
• Simmons v. Pacor, Inc. (1996). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, which had upheld judgment n.o.v. for the defendants in Giffear and reversed the plaintiffs' verdicts in Simmons and Murray, so Owens-Illinois, Fibreboard and Keene prevailed over the three plaintiff couples.
• Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Products Corp. (1995). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, evenly divided, affirmed the Superior Court's order, leaving in place summary judgment for the asbestos defendants on the widow's survival action as time-barred.
• United Nat. Ins. v. France Refractories (1995). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's affirmance of a nonsuit against the insurer United National and remanded to the trial court to decide timeliness under the doctrine of laches, a ruling for United over France Refractories and the other appellees.
• JH France Refractories v. Allstate (1993). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the multiple-trigger theory and the finding of no insurer bad faith, but reversed the Superior Court's pro rata allocation of liability, so J.H. France may choose which triggered policy pays. It upheld PMA's pre-November 1973 products-hazard exclusion.
• JH France Refractories v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1990). The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the whole asbestos disease process from exposure to manifestation triggers coverage and its denial of attorney's fees to J.H. France, but reversed the trial court's allocation and held that insurers pay pro rata by time on the risk, with France bearing uninsured periods.
• Novelli v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1990). The court affirmed the $825,000 judgment for Kathleen Novelli against Celotex, rejecting her request for consortium damages past her husband's death and Celotex's challenge to delay damages on the consortium award.
• Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986). The court reversed summary judgment for the defendant asbestos companies in the Bagian case and remanded it, and affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in the Alice and Morgan cases because their claims were time-barred.
• Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984). The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order sustaining the defendants' preliminary objections to the Does' petition for a declaratory judgment on when the limitations period begins in asbestos disease cases.
• Christman v. Dravo Corp. (1983). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Dravo Corporation, holding that the widow's exclusive remedy against the employer was under the Longshoremen's Act because Dravo had secured compensation insurance.
• Utter et al. v. Asten-Hill Mfg. Co. (1973). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's dismissal of Robert Utter's own disability claim, but reversed it on the widows' death benefit claims and reinstated the Workmen's Compensation Board's awards to Margaret Utter and Alice Bambrick against Asten-Hill.