Rabatin v. Allied Glove Corp.
24 A.3d 388
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Cameron worked at U.S. Steel Edgar Thompson Works (1974–1982) and alleged asbestos exposure from GE turbines, leading to mesothelioma diagnosed February 2009.
- Cameron filed a civil action on April 28, 2009; GE moved for summary judgment on statute of repose (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5536).
- Trial court denied GE’s initial summary judgment on turbines exposure but granted a second summary judgment based on § 5536; Cameron died May 25, 2010 and Rabatin was substituted as plaintiff.
- This appeal challenges the application of § 5536 to the claims; the standard of review for summary judgments is plenary/de novo.
- The appellate court affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in GE’s favor, upholding § 5536 as applied here.
- Key issues focus on whether § 5536 applies to latent-disease asbestos claims, the § 5536(b)(2) exception, whether component parts are protected, and Open Courts arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5536 applies to latent-disease asbestos claims | Rabatin argues § 5536 shouldn’t apply to asbestos cases. | GE contends § 5536 governs construction-improvement claims and applies here. | Waived/non-preserved; issue not properly preserved for review. |
| Whether § 5536(b)(2) exception applies due to GE’s control | GE’s supervisory control over repairs brings it within § 5536(b)(2). | Fetterhoff limits control analysis; GE not an owner/tenant or otherwise possessory interest. | § 5536(b)(2) does not apply; GE not within owner/tenant/otherwise category. |
| Whether the turbines constitute improvements and thus § 5536 protection extends to GE | As the designer/manufacturer, GE should be protected for liability from the turbines. | Ferricks holds component parts may not be protected; Rabatin must show GE designed/supplied the relevant components. | GE entitled to § 5536 protections as the finished turbine designer/construction entity; evidence of component-part design/supply not shown. |
| Whether § 5536 violates Open Courts clause | Application of § 5536 deprives plaintiff of remedies for asbestos injuries. | Open Courts clause upheld by Freezer Storage and Columbia Gas; no constitutional violation here. | § 5536 not unconstitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 602 Pa. 627, 981 A.2d 198 (2009) (Pa. 2009) (latency of disease and statute of limitations implications discussed)
- Ferricks v. Ryan Homes, Inc., 396 Pa.Super. 132, 578 A.2d 441 (1990) (Pa. Super. 1990) (component parts not protected as improvements)
- Fetterhoff v. Fetterhoff, 354 Pa.Super. 438, 512 A.2d 30 (1986) (Pa. Super. 1986) (ownership/possession analysis for § 5536(b)(2) control issue)
- Noll by Noll v. Harrisburg Area YMCA, 537 Pa. 274, 643 A.2d 81 (1994) (Pa. 1994) (manufacturers entitlements under § 5536 when involved in design/construction)
- Freezer Storage, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 476 Pa. 270, 382 A.2d 715 (1978) (Pa. 1978) (Open Courts analysis for statutes of repose)
- Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Carl E. Baker, Inc., 446 Pa. Super. 481, 667 A.2d 404 (1995) (Pa. Super. 1995) (Open Courts justification and § 5536 framework)
- Jones v. Levin, 940 A.2d 451, 452-54 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Pa. Super. 2007) (summary judgment scope and standard (contextual background))
- Harris v. NGK North American, Inc., 19 A.3d 1053 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Pa. Super. 2011) (summary judgment standard and preservation principles referenced)
- Devine v. Hutt, 863 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Pa. Super. 2004) (waiver/presentation of grounds for relief in appellate review)
- Inclinator Co. v. Fetterhoff, no citation provided in text (n/a) (discussed in Fetterhoff's reasoning about possession/control)