LILLIQUIST v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc.
21 A.3d 1233
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Lilliquist filed a February 11, 2009 asbestos action in Allegheny County naming 54 defendants, including SVI.
- SVI appeared and denied all factual averments and asserted defenses, and participated in discovery.
- The trial court granted SVI summary judgment on product identification but denied it on negligence.
- SVI moved for summary judgment based on corporate dissolution; trial court granted this motion on February 24, 2010.
- Lilliquist settled with remaining defendants on the eve of trial; the court dismissed all claims against SVI.
- Appellant argues for appointment of a receiver and asserts due process/equal protection concerns; the appellate court affirms dismissal and refuses receiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Lilliquist's claims barred by Alabama unknown-claim law? | Lilliquist: claims should proceed despite dissolution. | SVI: unknown claims barred after two years following dissolution notice. | Unknown claims barred; summary judgment proper. |
| Did the court have jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over SVI? | Lilliquist seeks appointment to manage assets (insurance funds). | No cognizable right exists; appointment not warranted. | No receiver appointed; claims barred preclude remedy. |
| Did SVI's discovery participation bind the court to in-person jurisdiction? | Participation demonstrates submission to court's jurisdiction. | Participation does not overcome dissolution-based bar on remedy. | Not necessary to alter outcome; court can rely on Alabama law bar. |
| Does the decision violate due process or equal protection by not appointing a receiver given sister-state decisions? | Equal protection requires similar treatment as Ohio court decisions. | Pennsylvania applies Alabama law and need not mirror Ohio results. | No due process/equal protection violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quarture v. C.P. Mayer Brick Co., 363 Pa. 349 (1949) (state-law governs dissolution and recognizing foreign corporate rights)
- Wettengel v. Robinson, 288 Pa. 362 (1927) (foreign-dissolved corporate status governed by foreign law)
- Fleehr v. Mummert, 857 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2004) (submission to jurisdiction via meritorious actions beyond appearance)
- Gbur v. Golio, 600 Pa. 57 (2009) (affirming appellate basis to uphold dismissal on record grounds)
- CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69 (1987) (state authority to regulate domestic corporations; full faith and credit)