Johnson v. American Standard
607 Pa. 492
| Pa. | 2010Background
- Action consolidated suits by estates of asbestos injury victims against Crown Cork and other manufacturers and successors.
- Pennsylvania Act 101 of 2001 capped successor liability at the failed market value of the transferred business; Act 152 of 2004 narrowed that cap to claims accruing after Dec. 17, 2001.
- Crown Cork purchased Mundet Cork, which had an asbestos division; the division was sold 90 days after acquisition and Mundet was merged into Crown Cork.
- Plaintiffs seek to challenge Section 1929.1 as unconstitutional under the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses, arguing protectionism and unfair treatment of in-state vs. out-of-state corporations.
- Superior Court concluded plaintiffs lacked standing to raise dormant Commerce/Equal Protection challenges, prompting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review standing.
- Court earlier held Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp. invalidated 1929.1 as applied to pre-decision claims; this decision prompted Act 152 to limit applicability to post-Dec. 17, 2001 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge §1929.1 under the Commerce Clause. | Plaintiffs have direct, substantial, immediate interest due to dismissal of their suits. | Standing requires zone-of-interests; plaintiffs are not within the Commerce Clause zone. | Yes; plaintiffs have standing to challenge the statute. |
| Whether zone-of-interests analysis is required for standing in this context. | Zone-of-interests should not be the sole determinant; immediacy suffices given direct injury. | Zone-of-interests is essential to determine immediacy of interest. | Zone-of-interests may guide standing but is not an absolute test. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ standing is defeated by possible recoveries from other joint tortfeasors. | Recovery from others does not affect plaintiffs’ aggrieved status regarding Crown Cork's invocation of §1929.1. | Interests may be attenuated if other defendants are liable; standing depends on aggrievement. | Recovery possibilities do not defeat standing for the constitutional challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp., 842 A.2d 919 (Pa. 2004) (Remedies Clause; constitutional invalidity of §1929.1 as applied.)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (Standing—aggrievement; zone-of-interests as a guideline, not absolute test.)
- Ken R. v. Arthur J., 682 A.2d 1267 (Pa. 1996) (Zone-of-interests approach used to deny standing in visitation case.)
- South Whitehall Township v. S. Whitehall Twp., 555 A.2d 793 (Pa. 1989) (Zone-of-interests language cited as framework for immediacy analysis.)
- Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2005) (Standing focused on direct, real, and immediate injury; not contingent.)