Harris v. NGK North American, Inc.
19 A.3d 1053
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Harris, as administrator of Leonard Harris's estate, and Louise Harris sue NGK entities and affiliates alleging CBD from Reading plant exposure.
- Leonard Harris worked at the Reading plant for one year and lived nearby for decades; CBD requires specific immune response to beryllium.
- Plaintiffs claim take-home and residential exposure; posthumous claims include wrongful death and survival claims.
- Court granted summary judgment in favor all appellees; Insulators cross-appealed on service and personal jurisdiction.
- The court partly reverses and partly affirms: CBD medical-monitoring and some negligence claims analyzed; service/jurisdiction issues resolved in favor of plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CBD diagnosis precludes summary judgment on Harris's estate claims | Harris's CBD diagnosis and testimony create a prima facie link to impairment. | CBD does not prove a compensable injury or causation beyond other conditions. | Reversed in part; issue precluded summary judgment on CBD causation. |
| Whether service on NGK Insulators complied with Rule 430 and Hague | Alternative service via mail to NGK and Niwa was valid under Article 10(a). | Service failed to comply with Hague or translation requirements. | Affirmed proper service; alternative service upheld; service within due process. |
| Whether Louise Harris's medical monitoring claim survives | Evidence supports need for medical monitoring due to potential CBD exposure. | No cognizable medical monitoring injury without established CBD causation. | Affirmed summary judgment; medical monitoring claims rejected. |
| Whether Spotts, Stevens & McCoy, Inc.'s negligence claims survive | Engineering firm negligently contributed to exposure concerns. | No triable issue of fact on negligence by SSM. | Affirmed summary judgment for SSM. |
| Whether Insulators is subject to personal jurisdiction | Insulators' control of policy and beryllium supply creates minimum contacts. | No meaningful contacts with Pennsylvania; lacks general or specific jurisdiction. | In part: Insulators had sufficient minimum contacts; court retained jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pohl v. NGK Metals Corp., 936 A.2d 43 (Pa. Super. 2007) (CBD requires immunologic response; diagnostic criteria discussed)
- Sandoval v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 527 A.2d 564 (Pa. Super. 1987) (Article 10(a) service by mail valid; translation not required under Article 10(a))
- Jordan v. Septa, 708 A.2d 150 (Pa. Commw. 1998) (Hague service interpretations; supports Sandoval approach)
- Quate v. American Standard, Inc., 818 A.2d 510 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Compensability of symptoms tied to disease; causation considerations)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (Causation conflicts resolved by jury; summary judgment limited where medical evidence exists)
- Checchio v. Frankford Hosp., 717 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Asbestos-related causation context; comparison to CBD standard)
- McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 715 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Shortness of breath and causation in asbestos context; impairment required)