Jurisdiction Challenge Rejected Given that Defendant Company Was Registered in Pennsylvania as of the Date the Claim Was Filed

In the exposure to asbestos case of Data v. AO Smith Corp., No. 2:19-CV-00879-CRE (W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2021 Eddy, Mag. J.), a federal magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation it which it was recommended that the District Court deny a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the case based upon jurisdictional arguments.

The court ruled that Pennsylvania’s statute imposes general jurisdiction on all companies registering to do business in Pennsylvania is constitutional.

Notably, the court ruled that jurisdiction exists over a Defendant even for causes of action that arose prior to Defendant's registration in Pennsylvania as a foreign company so long as the corporation is so registered as of the time the lawsuit is filed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Proper Application of Fair Share Act

In the case of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018 (Feb. 19, 2020 Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Fair Share Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A 7102, required a factfinder to apportion liability on a percentage, as opposed to per capita, basis in strict liability asbestos actions.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, William Roverano, was allegedly exposed to a variety of asbestos products from 1971 to 1981 in the course of his employment as a helper and a carpenter with PECO Energy Company. Additionally, he allegedly smoked cigarettes for approximately thirty years. In November 2013, Roverano was diagnosed with lung cancer in both lungs. 

In 2014, Roverano brought a strict liability lawsuit against various defendants asserting that exposure to their asbestos products caused his lung cancer. His wife, Jacqueline Roverano, filed a loss of consortium claim. 

Before trial, several defendants filed a Motion In Limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The issues raised in that Motion gradually made its way up the appellate ladder to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court concluded the Act’s plain language was consistent with per capita apportionment in asbestos cases, the Act does not specifically preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment, and percentage apportionment in asbestos cases was impossible to execute. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s Order, which had vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded this case for a new trial to apportion damages on a percentage basis. 

Additionally, the Supreme Court considered whether the Act required a factfinder to apportion liability to bankrupt entities that had previously entered into a release with the Plaintiff. In this regard, the Court concluded that, upon appropriate requests and proofs, bankruptcy trusts that were either joined as third-party defendants or that had entered into a Release with the plaintiff should be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability only. 

In the end, this case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether the parties submitted sufficient requests and proofs to apportion liability to the settled bankruptcy trusts.

The Majority Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Justice Wecht's Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Chief Justice Saylor's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney Kenneth Newman of the Pittsburgh Office of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer for noting this case.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Address Application of Fair Share Act in Products Liability Cases

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal in the case of Roverano v. John Crane, No. 58 EAL 2018 (Pa. July 31, 2018) to address an issue of first impression involving the question of whether the Pennsylvania Superior Court misinterpreted the Fair Share Act in terms of apportioning liability amongst defendants in the context of this products liability case.

The Supreme Court's Order can be viewed HERE.

The Tort Talk post on the Superior Court's decision in Roverano, along with a link to that decision, can be viewed HERE.

Source:  "Pa. Justices to Consider Application of Fair Share Act in Strict Liability Cases"  by Max Mitchell, The Legal Intelligencer (Aug. 7, 2018).

Superior Court Confirms that Fair Share Act Applies in Products Liability Cases

In the Asbestos litigation case of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., et al., No. 2837 EDA 2017 (Pa.Super. Dec. 27, 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified that the Fair Share Act applies to products liability cases.

The court rejected arguments that the rule for apportioning liability amongst co-defendants did not apply in the context of strict liability cases.  The Superior Court remanded the case back to the trial court for a decision on how fault should actually be distributed amongst the parties.

A copy of the Superior Court's per curiam decision may be viewed HERE.

(Per curiam means "by the court," i.e. a decision, sometimes unanimous, by the court that does not identify the author but presents the decision as a court's opinion in the name of the court as opposed to a specific judge.  (I had to Google this definition to remind myself what per curiam meant)).

Judge Solano's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Again Reviews Validity of Punitive Damages Claims in Asbestos Litigation

In his recent decision in the asbestos litigation case of Horst v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 2015-CV-1903 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 26, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed Motions for Summary Judgment filed by various Defendants against punitive damages claims presented by the Plaintiffs.  

After reviewing the general law regarding punitive damages, the court also noted that the appellate courts of Pennsylvania have more specifically ruled that, in asbestos litigation, that the existence of medical articles and trade journal publications discussing the dangers of asbestos inhalation are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages absent some proof that the asbestos Defendant knew or had reason to know of the content of that literature. 

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

 

The court noted that various Motions for Summary Judgment previously filed by some Defendants seeking partial summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims were granted in this matter as there was no evidence that any of those Defendants knew or had reason to know of the articles or studies cited by the Plaintiffs and their expert.   However, based upon internal company documentation that certain other Defendants did have a subjective appreciation of the risk of arm, those other Defendants’ Motions in this regard were denied.  

In this particular decision, the court again denied certain Defendants Motions for Partial Summary Judgment but denied another Defendant's motion in a mixed result decision based upon the facts at hand.     

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Here is a LINK to other Tort Talk posts on other decisions by Judge Nealon in this same asbestos litigation case.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Tackles Numerous Asbestos Litigation Issues

In his recent 71 page Opinion in the case of Horst v. Union Carbide Corp. et al., No. 15 CV 1903 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 27, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon tackled a variety of issues raised in motions for summary judgments filed by twelve different defendants.

The Opinion contains useful nuggets of analysis addressing unique case law establishing special standards for medical causation, lay opinion testimony, the statute of repose, and punitive damages in asbestos litigation.

Anyone wishing to review this Horst decision may click this LINK.