Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number

1058 WDA 2006


Case Updates


May 23, 2012

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected “any exposure” testimony as insufficient to support causation in asbestos cases.

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief

April 21, 2011

NCLC urged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overturn the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision against Pneumo Abex. In its brief, NCLC argued that the trial judge properly excluded a doctor's testimony that any exposure to asbestos, no matter how small the dose, is a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma. This “any exposure” theory stands in sharp contrast to normal causation methodology, which requires an expert to assess a dose first and then demonstrate that the dose received was sufficient to cause disease. NCLC noted that the trial judge's rejection of the theory is a necessary step in bringing asbestos litigation back into the fold of ordinary toxic tort law.


April 30, 2010

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a trial court improperly excluded expert testimony asserting that a decedent contracted mesothelioma from working in the automotive industry.

U.S. Chamber addresses principles of tort law and admission of expert testimony

January 16, 2007

In this case, the estate of a decedent alleged that the inhalation of asbestos from automotive friction products caused the decedent's illness. NCLC urged the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to apply traditional rules of tort causation and admission of expert testimony to the new wave of asbestos litigation manufactured by the plaintiffs’ bar. In the initial wave, asbestos manufacturers themselves were targeted and ordinary limitations on causation and admission of expert testimony were abrogated in light of the difficulty of proof. NCLC explained that the plaintiffs’ bar has now moved on to other industries (after having bankrupted the asbestos manufacturing industry itself), targeting employers who may have had some asbestos onsite and manufactured products which used a less dangerous form of asbestos. In addition, the difficulties of proof that plagued the earlier wave of litigation have been ameliorated by the advances in epidemiology. Therefore, NCLC argued the court should revisit whether the traditional understandings of tort law, which were lessened during the first wave, should be applied to this new wave of asbestos litigation.

Case Documents