Black v. A.C. & S., Inc.
785 N.E.2d 1084
Ind.
2003
Check Treatment

Lоis BLACK, Administratrix of the Estate of Willie Black, deceased, and widow in her own right, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. A.C. & S., INC., A & M Insulation Company, A.P. Green Services, Inc., Brand Insulations, Inc., Combustion Engineering, Inc., General Refractories, North American Refractories, Owens Corning Fiberglas, Rapid American Corp., Universal Refractories, and William A. Pope Co., Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 45S04-0303-CV-124.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 25, 2003.

785 N.E.2d 1084

exists would be inconsistent with our system of jurisprudence.

.

The majority dismisses this holding on grounds that was decided under prior law because the language of Section 2, although then recently adopted, was not applicable to the facts there presented. We noted this fact in and described the effect of the amendment as providing “in pertinent part thаt an asbestos-related action must be brought within two years of the date when the injured person knows that he has an asbestos-related disease or injury.” . The effect of was to determine the application of the statute of repose with respect to asbestos-related claims in a manner quite consistent with that implemented with the legislature‘s enаctment of the ameliorative language of Section 2, allowing access to courts by persons with asbestos-related injuries.

The majority declares that the adoption of Section 2 renders analysis “obsolete,” Maj. Op. at 1078, because expressly excluded Section 2 from its determination and noted its uncertainty regarding whether the legislature “intended the ten year statute ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍of repose to bar claims such as this one, where the injury is the result of protracted exposure to a hazardous foreign substance.” . The majority‘s analysis assumes that Seсtion 2 represents the legislature‘s intent to bar all such claims except those against producers of raw asbestos. However, if Section 2 is read as the court undеrstood it, to provide a humane, fair, and just exception from the statute of repose for all persons whose asbestos-related diseases cannot be аscertained within ten years after exposure, the existence of Section 2 in no way renders obsolete.

Conclusion

For each of the reasons expressed above, I dissent from the mаjority.

RUCKER, J., concurs.

Robert E. Paul, Philadelphia, PA, Mark K. Dudley, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.

Jon L. Williams, Indianapolis, IN, Janet E. Golup, Philadelphia, PA, Attorney for Asbestos Corporation Ltd. and Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd.

George T. Patton, Jr., Stephanie F. Holtzlander, Bryan H. Babb, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Indiana Legal Foundation.

Michael R. Fruehwald, Andrew J. Detherage, Shelese Emmons, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Indiana Manufaсturers Association and Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

W. Russell Sipes, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍for Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

Christopher D. Lee, Todd C. Barsumian, Indianapоlis, IN, Attorneys for Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Amber L. Achilles, Kenneth Gorenberg, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for North American Refractories, Inc.

Raymond L. Faust, Suzette Vandivier Sims, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Brand Insulations.

Douglas B. King, James M. Boyers, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Rapid American Corp.

Susan E. Mehringer, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for AC & S.

Gus Sacopulos, Terre Haute, IN, Attorney for Universal Refractories.

Steven D. Hardin, Noblesville, IN, Roger E. Podesta, Karin S. Schwartz, New York, NY, Attorneys for Owens Corning.

Randall J. Nye, Hammond, IN, Attorney for General Refractories Co.

Knight Anderson, Indianapolis, ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍IN, Attorney for Kennedy Tаnk & Manufacturing Co.

Michael A. Bergin, Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Daniel M. Long, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for William A. Pope Co. & AlliedSignal, Inc.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Willie Black was employed at the Gary Works plant of USX Steel from 1956 to 1983 as a blast furnace worker. During his employment, Mr. Black was exposed to and inhaled dust emitted from asbestos products. Mr. Black died from lung cancer on August 1, 1996. On July 6, 1998, Lois Black, Willie Black‘s widow, filed a wrongful death and loss of consortium action against the Defendants alleging Mr. Black‘s death was a result of his exposure to the asbestos dust.

The Indiana General Assembly has enacted two statutes that limit the period of time within which individuals can file product liability claims. One of these statutes, Ind.Code § 34-20-8-1, generally applies to product liability clаims and establishes a ten-year period of repose; we will refer to this statute as “Section 1.” The second statute, Ind.Code § 34-20-3-2, specifically applies to certain asbestos liability claims; we will refer to this section as “Section 2.” (We note that prior to recodification in 1998, Sections 1 and 2 appeared at Ind.Code § 33-1-1.5-5 and § 33-1-1.5-5, respectively.)

In the present case, the Defendants argue that Section 2 only applies to a limited class of defendants and that they do not fall within that class. As such, certain Defendants contend that Ms. Black must proceed against them under the more time restrictive Section 1. Ms. Black responds that the statutory scheme violates both art. I, § 12, and art. I, § 23, of the Indiana Constitution.

The trial court agreed with the Defеndants that Section 2 did not apply to them since the Defendants had “established that they were not miners and sellers of commercial asbestos [and] Plaintiff does not argue that any of these defendants were miners or manufacturers of commercial asbestos,” and that the Section 1 statute of repose had expired prior to the accrual of Ms. Black‘s claims.1 (R. at 1827-28.)

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment based on the statute of repose after finding Section 2 was ambiguous. ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍When interpreting the ambiguity, the Court of Appeals read the Section 2 phrase “miners and sellers” as “miners or sellers” . Consequently, the Court of Appeals found that summary judgment was improper for the Defendants who sold asbestos-containing products since those claims fall under Section 2.

We hold today in , that the Legislature consciously intended to subject to Section 2 only those entities that produce raw asbestos, while leaving those who sell asbestos-containing products within the ambit of Section 1. We also hold that the statutоry scheme does not violate either art. I, § 12 or art. I, § 23, except in the limited circumstance where a reasonably experienced physician could have diagnosed the plaintiff with an asbestos-related illness or disease within the ten-year statute of repose, yet the potential plaintiff had no reason to know of the diagnosablе condition until the ten-year period had expired.

Our reasoning in that case applies here, and we reach the same result: since the evidence did not demonstrate that any of the Defendants both mined and sold commercial asbestos, Section 2 did not apply. Since the Blacks’ claims do not fall under Section 2, the generаl ten-year statute of repose found in Section 1 applies. Given that the Blacks’ claims were filed after the expiration of the period of repose, summаry judgment for the Defendants was proper unless a reasonably experienced physician could have diagnosed Mr. Black with an asbestos-related illness or diseаse within the ten-year statute of repose, yet Mr. Black had no reason to know of the diagnosable condition until the ten-year period had expired. We direct thе trial court to examine this possibility on remand.

Conclusion

We grant transfer pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SHEPARD, C.J., and BOEHM, J., concur.

DICKSON, J., dissents with separate opinion, in which RUCKER, J., concurs.

DICKSON, Justice, dissenting.

Asbestos-related cancer does not manifest itself until ten to twenty-five years after exposure. ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍I believe that the General Assembly, for reasons of compassion, fairness, and justice enacted Indiana Code § 34-20-3-2 to provide relief for all asbestos victims from the general ten-year statute of repose in the Indiana Product Liability Act. Consistent with this legislative intent, I believe that the phrase “persons who mined and sold” means “persons who mined and persons who sold” and that “commercial asbestos” includes not only raw asbestos but also asbestos in commercial products. I further believe that, under the majority‘s restrictive construction of this section, application of the product liability statute of reрose to the plaintiffs’ claims violates both Section 12 and Section 23 of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution. My reasons are detailed in (Dickson, J., dissenting).

RUCKER, J., concurs.

Notes

1
The trial court also granted the summary judgment motions of ACandS, Inc., Rapid-American Refractories, Universal Refractories, and Brand Insulations, Inc., based on a lack of evidence that Mr. Black was exposed to their asbestos-containing products. No issue in relation to these summary judgment orders is raised on appeal. In addition, the trial court granted the summary judgment motions of A & M Insulation Co. and William A. Pope Co., neither of which present issues raised on appeal.