Sabol v. Allied Glove Corp.
37 A.3d 1198
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Sabol, as executrix of her husband Dr. George P. Sabol’s estate, filed a product liability suit against CMU and others for mesothelioma from asbestos exposure.
- Dr. Sabol was a CMU graduate student (Carnegie Institute of Technology) 1961–1965; his work included paid research and Ph.D. thesis work.
- Dr. Sabol was diagnosed with mesothelioma on January 31, 2008; suit filed February 2009; CMU added as a defendant February 2009.
- The trial court granted CMU summary judgment on March 31, 2010 based on Workers’ Compensation exclusivity; Sabol sought reconsideration, which was denied.
- The court also entered an October 30, 2009 discovery order limiting production to gloves and a furnace; this order was challenged on appeal.
- Dr. Sabol testified the gloves and furnace were asbestos-containing products he used during 1964–1966; the scope of discovery became a central issue on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CMU summary judgment was proper under the Workers’ Compensation exclusivity. | Sabol argues exposure occurred as a student, not as an employee. | CMU contends Sabol was an employee for compensation; exclusivity bars non-employee claims. | The court held the issue for the fact-finder; not entitled to exclusive dismissal; reversed and remanded. |
| Whether the trial court properly limited discovery to gloves and furnace. | Sabol contends broader discovery should be allowed to recall all asbestos products. | CMU contends discovery scope should be limited to identified items and burdensome to expand. | Discovery order limiting discovery to gloves and furnace affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hastings v. Pa. Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 407 Pa. Super. 282, 595 A.2d 1150 (1991) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery; employee status where relevant)
- ADP, Inc. v. Morrow Motors Inc., 969 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2009) (summary judgment standard; review on record taken in light of inferences for non-movant)
- Landis v. A.W. Chesterton, 20 A.3d 1183 (Pa. 2011) (supreme court consideration of exclusive remedy issues in asbestos exposure context)
- Glomb by Salopek v. Glomb, 366 Pa. Super. 206, 530 A.2d 1362 (1987) (apportionment of harm; Restatement guidance for multiple causes)