OPINION
Plаintiff, employees of United States Steel Corporation, filed suit on August 25, 1976, against appellants, Koppers Co., Inc., and Allied Chemical Corpоration, and co-defendant Salem Corporation for personal injuries and/or wrongful deaths caused by occupational exposure to substances emitted by coke ovens at the premises of United States Steel Corporation. Appellant, Koppers, filed a third рarty complaint against appellee, United States Steel (USS) seeking contribution or indemnity. USS filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer contending its joinder was precluded by the amended Section 303 of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of Dec. 5, 1974, P.L. 782, No. 263, § 6, 77 P.S. § 481(b) (Supp.1978-79). The Preliminary Objections dismissing appellee from the suit were sustained and that decision was affirmed per curiam, with one dissent, by the Superior Court.
The Agreed Statement of the Record sеts forth the following facts. At all times material to the initial suit, plaintiffs or their decedents were employed by appellee at its Clairton Cokе works. Within the scope of their employment, plaintiffs had occasion to work in close proximity to coke ovens designed, constructеd and installed by appellants. Plaintiffs were exposed to certain substances emitted from the coke ovens over an extended pеriod of time and allegedly as a result developed lung cancer. The parties all agree that the injuries occurred before February 3, 1975.
*457
Prior to February 5, 1975, Pennsylvania law permitted a third party sued by an injured employee to obtain contribution or indemnity from the employer to the extent of the latter’s statutory compensation limits.
Socha
v.
Metz,
“In the event injury or death to an employe is caused by a third party, then such employe, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to receive damages by reason thereof, may bring their action at law against such third party, but the employer, his insurance сarrier, their servants and agents, employes, representatives acting on their behalf or at their request shall not be liable to a third party for damages, contribution, or indemnity in any action at law, or otherwise, unless liability for such damages, contributions or indemnity shall be expressly provided for in a written contract entered into by the party alleged to be liable prior to the date of the occurrence which gave rise tо the action.” 77 P.S. § 481(b) (Supp. 1978-79).
Although the injuries in the instant case occurred prior to the amendment’s effective date, the suit itself was not initiated until aftеr this date. The trial court therefore reasoned that since the amended Section 303(b) gave the employer complete immunity from suit that it was in keeping with the intentions of the General Assembly to bar the joinder of appellee where the suit was filed subsequent to the Act’s effective date. We disagree.
The Statutory Construction Act states:
*458
While the Statutory Construction Act makes no distinctions based on the type of statute, this Court has distinguished between statutes affecting рrocedural matters and those altering substantive rights.
Misitis v. Steel City Piping Co.,
*457 “No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926 (Supp.1978-79).
*458
Of course, at first blush, appellants’ right of joinder may appear to merely be a рrocedural issue. However, by disallowing such joinder Section 303(b) also denies appellant any right of contribution or indemnity from appelleе. The law of contribution and indemnity has been recognized as substantive in nature.
Howey v. Yellow Cab Co.,
Section 303(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act more than alters, it оbliterates, a cause of action. Prior to this amendment, the third party defendant was able to join the employer" and present evidenсe to a jury concerning the employer’s negligence. This evidence might exonerate the third party from all liability by proving the employer’s nеgligence alone had caused the injury or it might result in a determination that the employer and third party were jointly liable. However, the enaсtment of Section 303(b) has foreclosed the adjudication of the liability of the employer.
Hefferin v. Stempkowski,
Appellee argues that even if Section 303(b) applies only prospectively it still is of benefit to them because the plaintiff in the tort action did not file his complaint until August *459 25, 1976, which was after the еffective date of the amended Section 303. This is important, according to appellee, because until appellants were sued by plaintiff they had no claim against appellee for contribution and indemnity. This simplistic approach ignores the fact that any liability on the part of appellee for contribution or indemnity to appellant would have to be based upon appellee’s own negligent conduct which occurred, if at all, prior to the effective date of Section 303. There is no indication in the statute that the legislature “сlearly and manifestly” intended Section 303 to apply when the date of the alleged negligence conduct and the injuries themselves occurred prior to the effective date. Indeed, in the last clause of this section the legislature focused on the date of the injury when it provided an exception to the employer’s immunity where “liability . shall be expressly provided for in a written contract entered into by the party . . . prior to the date of the occurrence which gave rise to the action.” (Emphasis added.) The legislature did not use the time frame of “prior to the time the action was filed.”
Although this Court determines Pennsylvania law, our decision today is in accord with numerous federal decisions which in interpreting Pennsylvania law, have considered this precise issue and have refused to apply Section 303(b) to cases where plaintiffs’ injuries occurred prior to February 5, 1975 but the suit was filed subsequent to this date.
Atkins v. Blaw Knox Foundry and Mill Machinery, Inc.,
Finally, this Court did not consider appellant’s Kоppers’ argument that the plaintiffs’ claims are not within the definition of occupational disease under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 27.1(n). The failure of appellant to properly raise this issue either before the trial court or Superior Court precludes us from considering it tоday.
*460
Commonwealth v. National Federation of the Blind,
The orders of the trial court sustaining the preliminary objections of appellee and of the Superior Court affirming the trial court are hereby reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.