Share:
House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda
House of Representatives
Session of 2013 - 2014
Regular Session
MEMORANDUM
| Posted: | January 10, 2014 10:17 AM |
|---|---|
| From: | Representative Gordon Denlinger |
| To: | All House members |
| Subject: | Statute of Limitations for Asbestos-Related Claims |
| On December 16th, the state supreme court issued a decision in Neiman v. Commonwealth in which it declared Senate Bill 92 of 2004 to be unconstitutional under the “single subject” rule of Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court, however, stayed its decision for 90 days to allow for remedial legislation to be enacted by the General Assembly, if appropriate. Senate Bill 92 involved numerous different topics, but one issue concerned the statute of limitations for asbestos-related claims. I propose to introduce legislation that would re-enact this aspect of Senate Bill 92. Ironically, this aspect of Senate Bill 92 was also enacted in reaction to a prior decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In 2001, legislation was adopted by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the Pennsylvania Legislature that limited the asbestos-related liabilities that a Pennsylvania corporation would be exposed to where it was the successor in a merger with another corporation that had once been subject to asbestos liabilities. That law limited the cumulative liabilities of the successor to the inflation-adjusted fair market value of the assets of the merged company from which the asbestos-related liabilities were inherited. On February 20, 2004, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Ieropoli v. Crown Cork & Seal that this successor liability statute could not retroactively extinguish asbestos-related claims that had “accrued” before the new law was enacted. Senate Bill 92 gave effect to the Supreme Court’s Ieropoli decision by adding a new section to Title 42 dealing with causes of action for asbestos exposure. The new section provided that the limit on successor liability did not apply to claims that accrued prior to enactment of that law. I intend to introduce legislation that would re-enact this aspect of Senate Bill 92. Doing so will provide certainty to litigant and businesses alike, while maintaining consistency in Pennsylvania law. |
||
| View Attachment | ||