Wygant, E. v. General Electric
113 A.3d 310
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 17, 2011 and died July 9, 2012; no suit was filed during her lifetime. Administratrix filed wrongful death and survival actions on January 9, 2014.
- Defendants (GE and others) moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing the claims were time-barred under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(8).
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings; Administratrix appealed as to the wrongful death claim (she did not contest the survival claim was time-barred).
- Central legal question: whether § 5524(8) (a two-year limitations period measured from physician diagnosis or knowledge of injury) governs asbestos wrongful death claims following Commonwealth v. Neiman, which invalidated Act 152 and § 5524.1.
- The court held Neiman voided Act 152 (and its re-enactment), which in turn restored the previously enacted § 5524(8); that provision applies to both survival and wrongful death asbestos claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any asbestos‑specific limitations statute now governs | Neiman left no operative asbestos statute; pre‑§5524(8) case law (Baumgart) governs | The invalidation of Act 152 revived the earlier §5524(8) which remains operative | §5524(8) remains operative because the repealing/enacting Act 152 was void ab initio |
| Whether §5524(8) displaced prior law that wrongful‑death accrual runs from date of death | Baumgart rule should control: wrongful‑death accrual runs from date of death if death occurs within two years of diagnosis | Legislature intended a single accrual trigger (diagnosis) for all asbestos claims, including wrongful death | §5524(8) altered prior law and governs accrual for asbestos wrongful death—statute runs from diagnosis/knowledge |
| Whether §5524(8) is ambiguous as to who is the "person" triggering the statute | "Person" should be construed as wrongful‑death beneficiary; otherwise statute could bar claims before accrual (absurd result) | "Person" plainly refers to the asbestos‑afflicted individual; no ambiguity exists | Statute is unambiguous: "person" means the asbestos‑affected person; diagnosis triggers the limitations period |
| Whether §5524(8) permits limitations to run before a wrongful‑death cause exists (absurdity) | Applying §5524(8) can bar wrongful‑death claims before death or before a representative can timely sue, an absurd/impossible result | Harsh results reflect legislative prerogative; statute validly limits availability of wrongful‑death suits where decedent could not have recovered in life | Even if some wrongful‑death claims are foreclosed before death, the legislature may set such limits; application here bars Administratrix’s claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (invalidated Act 152 and its re‑enactment of asbestos limitations as violating the single‑subject rule)
- Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012) (discussed absence of a specific asbestos limitations provision in light of Neiman)
- Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Prods. Corp., 633 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 1993) (earlier en banc decision treating wrongful‑death accrual as running from date of death)
- Ingenito v. AC&S, Inc., 633 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. 1993) (wrongful‑death cannot be maintained where decedent could not have recovered in life)
- Moyer v. Rubright, 651 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Super. 1994) (§5524 applied to both wrongful‑death and survival claims)
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legislature may limit wrongful‑death recoveries by statute)
- DiSerafino v. Bucyrus‑Erie Corp., 470 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 1983) (discussing legislative ability to limit recoveries)
- Mazurek v. Farmers’ Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 181 A. 570 (Pa. 1935) (repeal principles: invalid repeal can revive prior statute)