Duffy v. CBS Corp.
161 A.3d 1
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- CBS (successor to Westinghouse) manufactured and installed a turbine generator at Pepco’s Morgantown plant; insulation specified for the installation contained asbestos.
- Last known exposure from the Unit 1 insulation installation was June 28, 1970; the unit was operational by July 1970.
- Piper (steamfitter) was diagnosed with mesothelioma on December 26, 2013 and sued multiple defendants, including CBS, in March 2014.
- CBS moved for summary judgment arguing CJP § 5-108 (the 20-year statute of repose for improvements to real property) barred Piper’s claim; the trial court granted the motion.
- Piper appealed; after he dismissed the remaining defendant, the appellate court treated the appeal as timely and reached the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5-108 bars Piper’s claim | Piper: accrual (discovery) is in 2013 but the statute’s original anti-retroactivity language (1970 session law §2) protects claims "arising" on/before June 30, 1970 | CBS: accrual = discovery; §5-108 bars any claim that accrues more than 20 years after the improvement was first used (here after July 1990) | Held: §5-108 bars Piper’s claim; accrual occurs on discovery (2013), so claim accrued >20 years after 1970 completion |
| Meaning/effect of Chapter 666 (1970) §2 uncodified retroactivity language | Piper: uncodified §2 (“not apply to any cause of action arising on or before June 30, 1970”) remains operative and protects his exposure date in 1970 | CBS: §2 was not codified into CJP §5-108; even if §2 survived, "arising" means "accruing" (discovery), so it does not help Piper | Held: even if §2 had force, "arising" should be read as "accruing" in context and history of the statute, so §2 does not save Piper’s claim |
| Manufacturer exemption in §5-108(d)(2)(ii) (asbestos exception) | Piper: CBS is a manufacturer and immune-from-repose exemption should apply because asbestos exposure occurred during installation | CBS: either not a "manufacturer" for the turbine/product or, if exemption applies, it was enacted in 1991 and cannot revive a claim already barred by repose as of July 1990 | Held: Manufacturer exemption enacted after Piper’s claim was already barred; applying it would unconstitutionally revive a vested defense — exemption cannot be applied retroactively to revive the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351 (statutory construction principles; begin with plain language and legislative purpose)
- Hilliard & Bartko Joint Venture v. Fedco Sys., 309 Md. 147 (discovery rule informs accrual under repose context)
- Burns v. Bechtel Corp., 212 Md. App. 237 (accrual tied to discovery for §5-108 purposes)
- Dua v. Comcast Cable of Md., 370 Md. 604 (retroactive legislation that revives barred claims violates Maryland Constitution)