Pennsylvania Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Pennsylvania's courts and the federal courts there: 303 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Pennsylvania asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Pennsylvania asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

• 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.

State appeals courts

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

• Herold v. University of Pittsburgh (2022). The Commonwealth Court affirmed, on different grounds, the trial court's denial of summary judgment to the University of Pittsburgh, and remanded so Herold's estate could pursue its common law claims against the University.
• Geier v. Board OF Public Education OF School District OF Pittsburgh (2017). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment for the Pittsburgh school board (PBE), so the Geiers' negligence claim against PBE continues.
• City of Williamsport v. Workers'compensation Appeal Board (2016). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's order, which had upheld an award of fatal claim benefits to the widow, so the City of Williamsport won and the claimant lost.
• Zenak v. Police Athletic League OF Philadelphia (2016). The Commonwealth Court affirmed denial of Officer Zenak's post-trial motion, which left the nonsuits on his negligence and False Claims Ordinance claims in place. It reversed denial of the City of Philadelphia's post-trial motions because the whistleblower claim should not have gone to a jury, and remanded for the trial court to make its own findings or hold a new bench trial.
• JM Manufacturing/formosa Plastics Corporation v. Workers'compensation Appeal Board (2010). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's order, which had affirmed benefits for Claimant Barrett, and ruled for the Employer because Claimant did not establish asbestos exposure at the Franklin facility.
• Young v. Wcab (zinc Corp. OF America) (2006). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's affirmance of the denial of benefits, held Zinc Corporation of America liable to Mrs. Young as the last employer, and remanded for calculation and award of benefits.
• Ace Robbins, Inc. v. Wcab (bullock) (1994). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order, which upheld the referee's award of benefits to claimant Bullock against his employer Ace Robbins, Inc.
• Fisk v. Wcab (general Elec.) (1993). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, which had required benefits to be calculated on the decedent's 1980 wage (date of last exposure) and had reversed the referee's 20% penalty against General Electric; the claimant widow lost on both issues.
• Ward v. Wcab (sun Refining) (1991). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order, which let Sun Refining receive subrogation reimbursement of $107,739.68 from the widow's third-party settlements; Dorothy Ward lost.
• Peeples v. Wcab (foster Wheeler) (1990). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, holding that the employer Foster Wheeler was entitled to subrogation against the widow's third-party settlements and approving the Board's modified 988.4-week credit calculation.
• Maher v. Wcab (BP Oil Corp.) (1989). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's affirmance of the referee's denial of benefits to claimant Maher against B.P. Oil Corporation and remanded for a determination of the date of disability and computation of benefits.
• Marcucci v. Wcab (BP Oil Co.) (1986). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order, which had denied benefits, and remanded for an award of death benefits to the widow, Olga Marcucci, against B.P. Oil Company.
• Asbestos Insul. Co. v. Wcab (McGOVERN) (1983). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order, leaving Asbestos Insulating Co. and its insurer liable for the disability and death benefits of Joseph McGovern's widow.
• Bambrick v. Asten Hill Mfg. Co. et al. (1972). The Commonwealth Court reversed the awards of the Workmen's Compensation Board and the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court to Robert Utter, Margaret Utter and Alice Bambrick, and dismissed all three claim petitions in favor of Asten Hill, its insurers and the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania Superior Court

• Constantine v. Lenox Instrument Co., Inc. (2024). The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Lenox's post-trial motion, leaving the bench-trial judgment for Constantine in place, and reversed in part the order on delay damages, finding three periods wrongly excluded and remanding.
• Constantine v. Lenox Instrument Company (2024). The Superior Court vacated the order dismissing Esterline Technologies, holding it violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule, and remanded for a new trial limited to whether Esterline is liable for Lenox's conduct; Constantine won on this appeal.
• Fisher v. American International Industries (2024). The Superior Court affirmed the denial of American International Industries' motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and JNOV, but vacated the judgment that gave it one-half of the verdict and remanded for judgment divided per capita among it, Whittaker Clark and Daniels, and Colgate-Palmolive.
• The Continental Insurance Company v. Pennsylvania Electric Company (2024). The Superior Court affirmed the order denying Continental's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting Penelec's cross-motion, so Penelec won and Continental could not refuse to defend based on the Employer's Liability Exclusion.
• Anderson v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (2023). The Superior Court reversed the summary judgment that the trial court had entered for Consolidated Rail Corporation against William Anderson, and remanded for further proceedings, which may include a Frye hearing.
• Korol v. Aurora Pump Company (2023). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Crane Company and Warren Pump Company, which had been entered against the decedent's estate, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Mullen v. American Circuit Breaker Corporation (2023). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for IntriCon Corporation (formerly Selas) and remanded for further proceedings, siding with the estate administratrix Debbie Mullen.
• Shellenberger v. Kreider Farms (2023). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Kreider Farms (the employers) and remanded for further proceedings, in favor of the Shellenberger estate.
• Smith v. Beckman Coulter, Inc. (2023). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order granting Dickinson College's petition to transfer the case from Philadelphia County to Cumberland County, ruling against plaintiffs Susan Smith and Christopher Weatherley.
• Vitcavich v. Owens Corning/fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (2023). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and its trustees, holding the estates' claims untimely and rejecting their procedural challenges.
• Smith v. AO Smith Corp. (2022). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Vanadium Enterprises Corporation, holding the record did not support successor liability for the decedent's former employers, and the executrix Kelly Smith lost.
• Brandt v. Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. (2020). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the plaintiff's exposure expert testimony and its grant of summary judgment to Colgate-Palmolive, against Charles Brandt and the Estate of Sally Brandt.
• Schrader v. Ameron International Corporation (2020). The Superior Court vacated the judgment entered on the jury's verdict for Ameron International Corporation and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court wrongly refused the jury's request to see an exhibit; Colleen Schrader prevailed on that point.