DuBose Law Firm

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that two plaintiffs alleging that exposure to asbestos caused their illnesses cannot have their cases dismissed on summary judgment simply because the plaintiffs’ doctor opined that their illnesses are attributable both to exposure to asbestos and to smoking.

According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, the court’s ruling in Summers v. Certainteed Corp. and Nybeck v. Union Carbide Corp. could impact many cases beyond asbestos litigation by setting the standard of review of summary judgments as a de novo review, rather than an abuse of discretion standard of review.

Justice Max Baer, writing for a majority including Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices Debra Todd and Seamus P. McCaffery, overruled a prior Superior Court ruling, Quate v. American Standard Inc.

In that 2003 case, the Superior Court ruled that when a plaintiff has symptoms that could arise from exposure to asbestos, as well as from another malady, “‘the existence of those non-asbestos-related medical conditions negate his ability to establish the necessary causal link between his symptoms and asbestos exposure,’” Baer said.

The Supreme Court rejected the bright-line rule implied in Quate — that plaintiffs should be precluded from recovery when their breathlessness and other symptoms could be attributable to diseases, some of which are caused by asbestos exposure and some of which are due to other causes.

Baer said such issues of causation, when backed by “reasonably certain expert opinions,” should survive summary judgment and go to juries to determine causation.

“Under this commonwealth’s jurisprudence, where it is clear that reasonable minds could differ on the issue of causation, precluding asbestos litigants from pursuing causes of action, supported by competent medical evidence, merely because of the existence of competing health conditions, is unsustainable,” Baer wrote.