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 appeals courts

Pennsylvania Superior Court

• Chenot v. AP Green Services, Inc. (2006). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Beazer East (successor to Koppers) and remanded for further proceedings, siding with plaintiff Joanne Chenot.
• Rudy v. A-Best Products Company (2005). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment and final judgment for the TMI Defendants (Metropolitan Edison and affiliated GPU and power companies) against Rudy's estate and his wife.
• Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2005). The en banc Superior Court was evenly divided, so the trial court's summary judgment for the asbestos defendants (CertainTeed and Union Carbide) against plaintiffs Summers and Nybeck was affirmed.
• Gilbert v. Monsey Products Co. (2004). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Monsey Products and IPA Systems, vacated the judgments, and remanded the case to the plaintiff's estate's benefit for trial.
• Gilbert v. Monsey Products Company (2004). The Superior Court reversed the orders granting summary judgment for Monsey Products Co. and IPA Systems, vacated the judgments, and remanded, ruling for the plaintiff (Gilbert).
• Jessop v. Acf Industries, LLC (2004). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing Janet Jessop's asbestos suit on forum non conveniens grounds, so the defendants won and she must re-file in Kansas.
• Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (2004). The Superior Court rejected John Crane's evidentiary challenges but held the $2,000,000 award to Oscar Smalls and $500,000 consortium award to Lizzie Smalls excessive, vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial on damages only.
• Harahan v. AC & S, Inc. (2003). The Superior Court reversed summary judgment for Amchem Products (Benjamin Foster Division) and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the plaintiff widow.
• Andaloro v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (2002). The Superior Court vacated the judgments because the trial court applied a pro rata setoff for the unsettled Manville Trust claims, remanded for a pro tanto setoff, and otherwise affirmed the rulings against John Crane, Inc. on judgment n.o.v., new trial and remittitur.
• Gatling v. Eaton Corp. (2002). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Uniroyal and the other defendants, holding the Gatlings' second suit for symptomatic nonmalignant asbestos disease barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations.
• Gutteridge v. AP Green Services, Inc. (2002). The Superior Court reversed the summary judgments for Hercules Chemical, Pecora and PECO, which had been entered against Mrs. Gutteridge, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Wilson v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2002). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Flintkote Co. against the administratrix of Dolly Chase's estate, finding no sufficient evidence that she was exposed to Flintkote Fibrex Cement.
• Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co. (2000). The Superior Court affirmed the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict to Owens-Corning and Garlock on Phase I, and affirmed the grant of a new Phase II trial on Garlock's liability, so the Lonascos and the Collinses prevailed.
• Baker v. AC&S, Inc. (1999). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's reduction of the verdict by a pro rata share for the Manville Trust, holding the Trust's pro tanto release must be enforced so that AC&S bears the shortfall. It affirmed the denial of AC&S's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remanded to Mrs. Baker's benefit.
• Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Owens-Corning's motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' verdicts and the judgment entered for them in place.
• McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's refusal to remove a compulsory nonsuit entered against plaintiff Bradley McCauley on statute of limitations grounds, and remanded for a new trial, ruling against the defendants.
• Busfield v. AC & S., Inc. (1994). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order excluding evidence of Alva Busfield's fear of developing cancer, so the plaintiffs lost against the asbestos defendants.
• DiDio v. Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. (1994). The court stayed Keene's appeal because of its bankruptcy, vacated the judgment against Fibreboard because asymptomatic pleural thickening and asbestosis based on fear of cancer were not compensable, and affirmed the $900,000 judgment against Owens-Illinois and the severance of its cross-claims.
• Dempsey v. Pacor, Inc. (1993). The Superior Court vacated the judgments entered for the six plaintiff couples against Owens-Illinois, Keene and Fibreboard and remanded for a new trial on damages only, with no fear or increased-risk-of-cancer elements.
• Giffear v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1993). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment n.o.v. for Keene and Fibreboard, setting aside the jury's $300,000 award to William Giffear, because asymptomatic pleural thickening and fear or risk of cancer are not compensable injuries.
• Higginbotham v. Fibreboard Corp. (1993). The Superior Court vacated the judgment for Nathan and Jean Higginbotham against Fibreboard Corporation and remanded for a new trial limited to Mr. Higginbotham's present injuries, so Fibreboard prevailed on appeal.
• Today's Exp., Inc. v. Barkan (1993). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for the sellers (the Barkans and Taubergs) and their real estate agent Howard Hanna Company, holding the buyers' fraud and negligence suit over asbestos in an apartment building was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992). The en banc Superior Court reversed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Marinari's lung cancer action was not time-barred by the earlier discovery of pleural thickening.
• Taliferro v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1992). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's compulsory nonsuit for defendants Pittsburgh Corning and Fibreboard on James Taliferro's lung cancer and pleural thickening claims and remanded for further proceedings.
• United Nat. Ins. Co. v. JH France Refractories Co. (1992). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's compulsory non-suit, holding that United National Insurance's suit to rescind the policy was time-barred, so the insured refractory manufacturers (J.H. France and others) prevailed.
• Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1991). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment against Fibreboard Corporation for one-eighth of the Lilleys' verdict plus delay damages, and also rejected the Lilleys' cross-appeal over the directed verdict on Fibreboard's cross-claims against Garlock and Eagle-Picher.
• Manzi v. HK Porter Co. (1991). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment for defendant H.K. Porter against plaintiff James Manzi, holding the jury instruction that Manzi could sue again if he later developed a compensable asbestos injury was correct (Celotex was severed due to bankruptcy stay); one judge dissented.
• Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991). The Superior Court reversed the order that marked the compensatory verdict satisfied, reinstated the compensatory verdict for the plaintiff estate against the appellee suppliers, and remanded for a delay damages hearing, but affirmed the striking of the punitive damages award against Corson and Penn's Valley.
• Normann v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1991). The Superior Court reversed the denial of Owens-Illinois' post-trial motion for a new trial and remanded for a liability trial under New York law, a win for Owens-Illinois over the executrix, Francine Normann.
• Bushless v. GAF Corp. (1990). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgments for GAF and the other defendants against plaintiffs Bushless, Barber, Kelly and Edmond, because the plaintiffs could not link any defendant's product to their work areas.
• Eckenrod v. GAF Corp. (1988). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for A-Best, Porter, Raymark, Owens-Corning and Garlock, because the widow and co-defendant Pittsburgh Gage did not show the decedent was exposed to those defendants' asbestos products.
• Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982). Affirmed summary judgment for the asbestos product manufacturer defendants, holding the Staianos' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

State trial courts

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

• Sharpless v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1997). The trial court granted compulsory nonsuits for defendants Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Uniroyal and Harbison Walker Refractories against plaintiffs Dallas Sharpless and Richard Wilson, and issued this opinion explaining the nonsuits for their appeals.
• Blase v. Allied Signal Inc. (1996). The trial court denied Mildred Blase's motion for reconsideration and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, because she had no medical expert to prove causation of her husband's lung cancer.
• United Insurance v. France Refractories (1996). After a retrial on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court rejected J.H. France's laches defense, found that France fraudulently obtained the excess policy, and declared the $5,000,000 policy void ab initio, so United National Insurance Co. won and France lost.
• Behrendt v. GAF Corp. (1993). The trial court granted the plaintiff estate's post-trial motion and ordered a new trial limited to damages, finding the $65,000 and $5,000 awards inadequate and not a compromise verdict, against defendants GAF, National Gypsum, Owens Corning and U.S. Gypsum.
• Gill v. Pacor, Inc. (1982). The trial court denied Johns-Manville's motions for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial, and also denied the plaintiffs' motion for a partial new trial on punitive damages, leaving the $125,000 compensatory verdict for the plaintiffs in place.
• Amatex Corp. v. Aetna (1979). The court sustained the insurers' (Aetna, American, Bellefonte, Stonewall, Interstate) preliminary objections and dismissed Amatex Corporation's petition for a declaratory judgment on insurance coverage for asbestos claims.

U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court

• Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (2012). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit and the District Court's summary judgment for Railroad Friction Products Corp. and Viad Corp, holding the Corson estate's state-law claims preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act.
• Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's decision vacating the class certification and the antisuit injunction, so the objecting class members won and the settling asbestos defendants and class counsel lost.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2024). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for General Electric against the estate of Carl Gay, and affirmed the denial of reconsideration, because GE was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity.
• Traser v. Sea Land Services (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2020). The Third Circuit dismissed the Estate of William Traser's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, because the district court's 2010 dismissal of the Michigan case was valid and unappealed, leaving the shipowners (Delta, Ogden Marine, Zapata, Sea Land and others) as the winners.
• Hassell v. The Budd Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. VI)) (2016). The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of Peggy Hassell's claims against Budd and Resco on Locomotive Inspection Act preemption grounds and remanded, so Hassell prevailed on appeal.
• Crawford v. Alcoa (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2014). The Third Circuit affirmed the MDL court's dismissal with prejudice of Angie Smiddy's wrongful death complaint against Alcoa for failing to comply with Administrative Order 12, so Alcoa prevailed and Smiddy lost.
• In re Collins (2000). The Third Circuit denied the petitioners' request for a writ of mandamus, leaving in place the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's decision to withhold remand of punitive damages claims, so the defendants prevailed.
• In re Patenaude (2000). The Third Circuit denied the asbestos plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to remand their cases from MDL 875, so the defendants prevailed and the cases stayed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc. (1999). The Third Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held that the state-court damages verdict barred relitigation of damages, so judgment for the Greenleafs against Garlock and Owens Corning must be entered at the state amount. It also ordered a new trial on Garlock's and Owens Corning's crossclaims against the non-appearing defendants.
• Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1995). The Third Circuit reversed the judgment for plaintiff Sarah Kirk against Owens-Corning and remanded for a new trial on damages and liability, because the district court refused to strike two biased jurors for cause, impairing Owens-Corning's peremptory challenges; it also found hearsay errors but upheld delay damages in principle.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

• Finello v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2023). The federal district court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so the Broderick estates' claims against it go forward.
• Pine v. John Crane, Inc. (2023). The court denied John Crane Inc.'s summary judgment motion on causation, granted it on non-pecuniary and punitive damages, and denied its motion to strike Lydia Pine's jury demand.