226 A.3d 526
Pa.2020Background
- William and Jacqueline Roverano sued ~30 defendants claiming William’s lung cancer (diagnosed 2013) was caused by occupational asbestos exposure (1971–1981); multiple defendants settled or were bankrupt trusts.
- At trial the jury found several defendants liable and awarded lump-sum damages; the trial court apportioned liability per capita among the liable defendants (equal shares).
- Defendants moved to apply the Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) to require percentage (pro rata) apportionment and to list bankruptcy trusts on the verdict form; the trial court denied those motions.
- The Superior Court reversed in part, holding the Fair Share Act requires percentage apportionment (including strict liability) and that bankruptcy trusts/releases can be listed for apportionment, and remanded for a new damages trial.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court as to apportionment method (holding per capita remains for strict-liability asbestos where apportionment is impossible) but affirmed that joined or released bankruptcy trusts may be presented to the jury for liability apportionment upon appropriate requests and proofs; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roverano) | Defendant's Argument (Crane/Brand) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Fair Share Act require percentage (pro rata) apportionment instead of per capita in strict-liability asbestos cases? | Act is silent on method; longstanding PA common law requires equal (per capita) apportionment in strict-liability cases and apportionment is often impossible for indivisible asbestos injuries. | Act expressly covers "including actions for strict liability" and mandates liability be apportioned in ratio to each defendant’s share (percentage); Congress intended parity with negligence. | Per capita apportionment remains for strict-liability asbestos cases when causation/apportionment cannot be reasonably determined; statute did not clearly abrogate common law and percentage apportionment can be impossible of execution. |
| Does the Fair Share Act require apportioning liability to bankrupt entities (trusts/releases) on the verdict sheet? | Act does not mention bankruptcy; prior Superior Court precedent disallowed listing bankrupt entities because of bankruptcy protections; inclusion would unfairly penalize plaintiffs. | §7102(a.2) covers any person who entered a release and permits transmitting that question to the trier of fact for apportionment only; inclusion does not expose trusts to further claims. | Bankruptcy trusts joined as defendants or nonparties that executed releases may be listed on the verdict sheet for liability only if a party makes appropriate requests and submits sufficient proofs; remand to evaluate sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000) (established equal/per capita apportionment among strictly liable joint tortfeasors)
- Walton v. Avco Corp., 610 A.2d 454 (Pa. 1992) (rejected introducing comparative-fault concepts into strict liability allocation)
- Martin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass, 528 A.2d 947 (Pa. 1985) (indivisible asbestos injuries cannot be apportioned without expert basis)
- Kimco Dev. Corp. v. Michael D’s Carpet Outlets, 637 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1993) (negligence/comparative-fault concepts have no place in strict liability)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (cautions against importing colloquial fault into strict-product-liability framework)
- Hudson v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 204 A.3d 392 (Pa. 2019) (statutory interpretation presumes legislature did not intend results impossible of execution)
- Ottavio v. Fibreboard, 617 A.2d 1296 (Pa. Super. 1992) (pre-Fair-Share precedent excluding bankrupt entities from verdict forms due to bankruptcy stay)
- Ball v. Johns-Manville Corp., 625 A.2d 650 (Pa. Super. 1993) (followed Ottavio in barring apportionment to bankrupt manufacturers)