Krauss, C. v. Trane US Inc.
104 A.3d 556
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Decedent Henry M. Krauss, a bricklayer, worked at various industrial sites (1976–1983) and later died of mesothelioma; appellant is his executrix, Colleen Krauss.
- Appellant sued multiple manufacturers (GE, Westinghouse/CBS, Georgia-Pacific, Goulds Pumps, Trane/American Standard, Zurn, etc.) alleging asbestos exposure from boilers, turbines, pumps, and joint/spackling compounds.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment for the six manufacturer defendants addressed on appeal; appeals followed.
- Plaintiff relied largely on lay affidavits/depositions (notably co-worker Mike Morgan and son David Krauss) and certain defendants’ interrogatory responses from unrelated litigation to show product presence and asbestos content.
- Trial court found the lay statements speculative, vague, lacking personal knowledge on asbestos content or specific product identification at particular sites/times, and insufficient under the frequency/regularity/proximity causation analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan affidavit creates genuine fact issues on exposure to all six manufacturers | Morgan’s affidavit and deposition show decedent worked near boilers/turbines/pumps and breathed visible dust from asbestos-insulated equipment | Affs are speculative, lack personal knowledge of asbestos content, lack site/product specificity, and fail frequency/regularity/proximity proof | Court: Affidavit insufficient; summary judgment affirmed |
| Westinghouse (CBS) turbines contained asbestos causing exposure | Morgan testified Westinghouse turbines were at AgraCo and worked there several weeks | Morgan disavowed knowledge that those turbines contained asbestos; Westinghouse interrogatory answers ambiguous | Court: No evidence turbines at AgraCo contained asbestos or that decedent worked close/frequently enough; SJ affirmed |
| GE turbines caused exposure | Plaintiff relied on Morgan and David Krauss affidavits, deposition excerpts, GE interrogatories, and a 1960 diagram | Defendants showed witnesses lacked knowledge that turbines contained asbestos; GE interrogatories and diagrams do not tie asbestos to specific turbines at decedent’s sites | Court: Plaintiff failed to show asbestos-containing GE products at sites or sufficient proximity/frequency; SJ affirmed |
| Georgia-Pacific joint/spackle products contained asbestos at sites and caused exposure | David Krauss and Morgan attest GP compounds were present and contained asbestos; GP interrogatories admit past asbestos in compounds until 1977 | GP shows timing, packaging, and intended use make industrial exposure unlikely; witnesses saw buckets but denied knowledge of asbestos content | Court: No evidence compounds with asbestos were used at decedent’s worksites in relevant form/time; SJ affirmed |
| Goulds Pumps products contained asbestos and decedent was exposed | Plaintiff cites presence of Goulds pumps at sites and deposition excerpts indicating turnarounds/repairs near pumps | Witnesses had no firsthand knowledge of asbestos release from Goulds pumps at decedent’s sites; evidence from unrelated cases did not place those products at decedent’s jobs | Court: Even accepting Goulds used asbestos in some parts, plaintiff failed to place asbestos-containing Goulds products at decedent’s sites or show required exposure; SJ affirmed |
| Liability for inclusion of third-party asbestos components (component-parts theory) | Appellant contends manufacturers are liable for asbestos-containing components integrated into their products | Defendants note lack of specific identification tying components to decedent’s exposure and lack of proof those components contained asbestos at the relevant sites | Court: Claim inadequately developed and waived; independently, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing; SJ affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 1988) (plaintiff must show exposure to particular manufacturer’s product; frequency/regularity/proximity test for circumstantial evidence)
- Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (adopts Tragarz approach; frequency/regularity/proximity applied flexibly; courts may make reasoned summary-judgment assessment)
- Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992) (sliding evaluative approach to frequency/regularity/proximity)
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012) (rejects "any-exposure/any-breath" theory; requires dose-related, reasoned assessment)
- Howard v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 78 A.3d 605 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam) (reiterates de minimis-exposure insufficiency and need for individualized exposure assessment)
- Gibson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Armco), 861 A.2d 938 (Pa. 2004) (lay witness opinion on asbestos requires sufficient personal experience/specialized knowledge under Rule 701)
- Juliano v. Johns-Manville Corp., 611 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. 1992) (speculation is insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Servs., Inc., 804 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2002) (settlement of remaining parties can render prior SJ orders final for appeal purposes)