Roverano, W. v. John Crane, Inc.
177 A.3d 892
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- William Roverano worked at PECO (1971–2001) and had regular asbestos exposures from 1971–1981; diagnosed with bilateral lung cancer in Nov. 2013; sued multiple asbestos defendants in Mar. 2014; Mrs. Roverano claimed loss of consortium.
- At trial the core disputed facts were (1) whether Roverano had frequent, regular, proximate exposure to John Crane and Brand Insulations asbestos products and (2) whether asbestos (alone or with smoking) substantially caused his lung cancer.
- Jury returned verdicts for the Roveranos: $5,189,265 to Mr. Roverano and $1,250,000 to Mrs. Roverano; several defendants found liable, others not; many defendants had settled or been in bankruptcy pre-trial.
- Trial court denied post-trial motions, entered judgments, and apportioned the verdict equally among eight liable defendants (per-capita allocation); Appellants Crane and Brand appealed.
- Trial court had ruled pretrial that the Fair Share Act did not apply to asbestos cases; the Superior Court reviewed that ruling and other trial rulings (jury instructions, verdict sheet content, expert testimony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roverano) | Defendant's Argument (Crane/Brand) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Appropriateness of jury instruction on "factual cause" / substantial factor | Court’s instruction correctly required proof that defendant exposure was frequent, regular, proximate and a substantial/factual cause | Trial court should have used a "but‑for" causation standard | Court rejected "but‑for" standard; upheld instruction using frequent/regular/proximate and substantial factor test (no abuse) |
| 2. Verdict form omissions (smoking causation / defect question) | Current verdict form sufficed; it required jurors to decide if asbestos exposure caused the cancer (if smoking caused it, answer would be no) | Requested specific verdict questions whether smoking caused cancer and whether product was "unreasonably dangerous" | Court held refusal to add those specific questions was not an abuse; verdict form was an adequate general guidepost |
| 3. Admissibility of experts using cumulative/"each and every" exposure causation language | Expert testimony that cumulative exposures (including Crane/Brand) substantially contributed to cancer was admissible | Experts improperly offered unspecific "each and every" causation testimony; should be excluded absent mesothelioma or markers | Court upheld admissibility; experts tied opinions to cumulative exposure and jury may weigh credibility and sufficiency |
| 4. Application of Fair Share Act to apportion liability (including settlements with bankrupt/nonparties) | Fair Share Act applies to strict liability asbestos cases; jury must apportion liability based on causation/degree, and settlors (including bankrupt estates that settled) must be considered in apportionment | Trial court refused Fair Share Act application, citing inability to quantify exposures and pre‑Fair Share per‑capita strict liability precedent | Superior Court held trial court erred: Fair Share Act applies to strict liability asbestos cases, mandates factfinder apportionment (not per‑capita); remanded for new trial on apportionment and inclusion of settling/nonparty liabilities |
Key Cases Cited
- Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 151 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2016) (rejects a "but‑for" test; requires focus on defendant‑specific frequency, regularity, proximity and substantial factor causation)
- Gregg v. V‑J Auto Parts Co., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (frequency, regularity, proximity guide defendant‑specific causation analysis)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (discusses relationship between negligence and strict liability concepts in product cases)
- Moore v. Ericsson, 7 A.3d 820 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court may decide defect issue as a matter of law when parties concede asbestos presence and focus is exposure/causation)
- Ottavio v. Fibreboard Corp., 617 A.2d 1296 (Pa. Super. 1992) (pre‑Fair Share precedent prohibiting inclusion of bankrupt nonparties in apportionment calculations)
- Ball v. Johns‑Manville Corp., 625 A.2d 650 (Pa. Super. 1993) (same principle as Ottavio regarding bankrupt defendants)
- Baker v. ACandS, Inc., 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000) (describes prior per‑capita allocation among strictly liable joint tortfeasors)