Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decedent Thomas Constantine was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2016. Mr. Constantine’s estate alleged that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos during his employment as a draftsman and designer at Lenox Instrument Company between 1974 and 1981. During that time frame Lenox manufactured heat shields for Lightsource products, which involved the cutting, drilling, and milling of heat shields that purportedly generated asbestos-laden dust.
In February 2022, a bench trial was held before the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The plaintiffs obtained a final judgment against Lenox in the amount of $2,327,597.76. Of that amount, $818,444.74 was awarded to the decedent’s estate pursuant to the Survival Act for injuries suffered prior to the decedent’s passing. The decedent’s wife and children received $700,000 pursuant to the Wrongful Death act, and the decedent’s wife was awarded an additional $700,000 in damages for her loss of consortium.
Lenox filed a post-trial motion requesting a new trial, or entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as well as the entry of nonsuit. Echoing its positions at trial, Lenox argued that the plaintiffs did not establish a right to relief as a matter of law, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Moreover, Lenox maintained that it was impossible for the decedent to have been exposed to asbestos dust because the heat shields used for the Lightsource products at the time were prefabricated and ready for assembly when delivered, and that Lenox lacked the equipment needed to alter them. Lenox also asserted that, in the alternative, even if plaintiffs’ claims were credible, Lenox could not be held liable because the decedent’s alleged exposure would have been minimal and insufficient to cause his disease. Finally, Lenox’s post-trial motion included several renewed challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.
Ultimately, the trial court entered an order denying Lenox’s post-trial motion in its entirety in September 2022. That same month, the plaintiffs filed a petition for delay damages in the amount of $392,896.41. The plaintiffs’ petition was granted in part and denied in part in October 2022, resulting in an increase of $109,152,02 to the judgement. Lenox appealed the trial court’s denial of its post-trial motion, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed the partial denial of delay damages.
First, regarding Lenox’s appeal, the Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the verdict was “not so contrary to the weight of the evidence that it would shock one’s sense of justice” or that a new trial was needed to give Lenox another chance to prevail. Here, the decedent had testified that he was frequently, regularly, and proximately exposed to asbestos dust for several years while employed at Lenox. Per the Superior Court, it was undisputed that Lenox manufactured a product during that time span that contained asbestos (Lightsource). The decedent had also testified as to the fabrication process of Lightsource products, which was corroborated by former co-workers. Moreover, the plaintiffs provided admissible expert testimony regarding causation. As for the duty of care that Lenox purportedly owed to the decedent, the plaintiffs’ experts also provided testimony stating that publicly available materials pre-dating the periods of the decedent’s employment at Lenox advised of dangers posed by inhalation of asbestos dust. Although Lenox disputed elements of causation, the Superior Court noted that it was the role of the trial court sitting as factfinder to weigh conflicting evidence, and that the trial court did just that.
Regarding Lenox’s nonsuit claim, per the Superior Court, “a compulsory nonsuit can be granted only at the close of plaintiff’s case and before the defendant presents any evidence.” “However, if the defendant elects to proceed to trial and presents a defense after nonsuit has been denied, then the trial court’s denial of nonsuit becomes moot.” Here, since Lenox went forward with trial and presented a defense after nonsuit was denied, the nonsuit issue became moot for purposes of appellate review.
Regarding the plaintiff’s cross-appeal pertaining to the partial denial of delay damages, the Superior Court ultimately reversed the trial court’s partial denial of delay damages. Specifically, the Superior Court determined that the record did not show that the plaintiffs were responsible for any delays during certain time periods in 2021 or 2022; rather, the matter was delayed by administrative actions taken by the court in response to the pandemic. Thus, since the delays were not attributable to the plaintiffs, the period of delay could not be excluded from the calculation of delay damages.
Lastly, in an effort to consolidate appeals, the Superior Court also heard the plaintiff’s appeal regarding the dismissal of Esterline Technologies Corporation. By way of background, the plaintiffs argued that Esterline was liable for the negligent conduct of its subsidiary, Lenox. Esterline moved for summary judgment, arguing that its corporate veil should not be pierced as a matter of law. Esterline’s motion was denied. A subsequent trial judge, however, dismissed Esterline by granting a motion in limine filed by Esterline, which sought to exclude corporate veil evidence. After the plaintiffs prevailed against Lenox, the plaintiffs appealed the grant of Esterline’s motion in limine and dismissal. The Superior Court agreed, finding that Esterline should not have been dismissed via its motion in limine as the evidence presented in the motion in limine was substantially similar to the evidence presented in its initial motion for summary judgment. By deciding an identical issue based on identical evidence, the second trial judge effectively overturned the ruling of another judge in the absence of a substantial change in law, facts, or evidence. This violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule. As such, the Superior Court vacated the order of dismissal as to Esterline and remanded the issue for a new trial on the sole question of whether Esterline was responsible for the conduct of Lenox.