Howard v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
31 A.3d 974
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Ravert, a decedent, contracted mesothelioma from alleged asbestos exposure; his executors filed an asbestos mass tort action against Chesterton, ACE, Monsey, Pecora, and Union Carbide.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, concluding Ravert did not establish exposure to their products under Eckenrod law.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the court misapplied Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co. and misweighed Ravert’s deposition testimony about dust versus respirable fibers.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court initially found the appeal interlocutory, remanded, and later the matter was reinstated as an appeal with the case resolved prior to trial.
- The Superior Court reversed, vacated the judgments, and remanded for further proceedings, holding issues of exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and the effect of Ravert’s admissions must be reconsidered under Gregg and related standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co. requires uniform regularity standards in mesothelioma cases. | Gregg allows less stringent regularity where mesothelioma exists. | Gregg mandates consistent regularity thresholds | Trial court erred; standard tailored to mesothelioma applied. |
| Whether Ravert’s admissions about no visible dust equate to no inhalation of respirable fibers. | Dusts and fibers are not interchangeable; invisible fibers possible. | Evidence equates dust with inhalation risk under Eckenrod. | Error to equate dust with respirable fibers; issues of fact remain. |
| Whether expert affidavits addressing exposure through product use create genuine issues of material fact. | Experts show substantial exposure even if Ravert did not see dust. | Affidavits lack methodological grounding and reliability. | Remand to consider expert evidence under proper Gregg framework. |
| Whether Union Carbide's product history can support Ravert’s exposure evidence despite conflicting affidavits. | Ravert testified to use of Union Carbide bags; affidavits create factual dispute. | Affidavits negate Ravert’s memories; credibility issue. | Genuine issue of material fact regarding Ravert’s Union Carbide exposure; not properly resolved at summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co., 596 Pa. 274, 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (flexible application of frequency/regularity/proximity in asbestos cases)
- Linster v. Allied Signal, Inc., 21 A.3d 220, 223-224 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (adapts Eckenrod standards for mesothelioma)
- Summers v. CertainTeed Corp., 606 Pa. 294, 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (explains jury may infer causal connection under certain exposure evidence)
- Hicks v. Dana Corporation, 984 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2009) (supports substantial factor approach for mesothelioma)
- Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 1988) (establishes product-identification standard for asbestos liability)
- Borough of Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 309 Pa. 236, 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) (affidavits cannot resolve credibility conflicts at summary judgment)