Linster v. Allied Signal, Inc.
21 A.3d 220
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Patricia Linster, as executrix and widow, sued numerous defendants for mesothelioma exposure at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (1966–1979).
- Crane Company moved for summary judgment arguing no evidence linking Linster to Crane products and no causation proof.
- Linsters relied on Linster’s and co-workers’ depositions showing exposure to Crane packing and gaskets containing asbestos.
- Crane argued co-worker testimony was inadmissible hearsay and that plaintiffs failed to prove specific Crane product causation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Crane; remaining defendants settled or were dismissed; Linster challenged only Crane’s grant on appeal.
- On appeal, the Superior Court vacated the judgment, reversed, and remanded for further proceedings, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Crane’s products causing injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact tying Linster’s mesothelioma to Crane products. | Linster presented deposition evidence showing Crane packing/gaskets contained asbestos and were used where Linster worked. | Crane argues lack of product identification and causation; co-worker testimony is insufficient and potentially inadmissible. | Yes; genuine issue of material fact existed to defeat summary judgment. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment given the deposition evidence and standard for asbestos cases. | Frequency, regularity, and proximity show exposure to Crane products. | Evidence fails to identify specific Crane products; no direct proof of causation. | Not dispositive at summary stage; record supports denial of summary judgment. |
| Whether the lower court erred in excluding or considering co-worker testimony under evidentiary rules. | Co-worker depositions aid product identification and exposure proof. | Potential hearsay and lack of cross-examination undermine admissibility. | Not essential to decision; court found admissibility not fatal to plaintiff’s prima facie case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarzia v. American Standard, Inc., 952 A.2d 1170 (Pa. Super. 2008) (frequency-regularity-proximity test for exposure causation in asbestos cases)
- Andaloro v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 799 A.2d 71 (Pa. Super. 2002) (no need to quantify exact exposure level; some exposure suffices)
- Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (exposure proof tailored to case; not rigid threshold)
- Weible v. Allied Signal, Inc., 963 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sufficiency of evidence to show proximity and product identification against multiple sources)
- Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 804 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2002) (scope of review for summary judgments in asbestos cases)