![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
January 14, 1988, Argued ; May 6, 1988, Filed
Nos. 903 Pittsburgh 1987, 904 Pittsburgh 1987
[*189] [**51] This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees A-Best Products Company ("A-Best"); Raymark Industries, Inc.; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation; Garlock, Inc.; and H.K. Porter Company, Inc. ("Porter"). Appellant Eckenrod claims that there was an issue of material fact regarding the liability of Porter and A-Best. Appellant Gage Company maintains that the lower court erred in determining that appellant Eckenrod failed to present sufficient factual evidence that her decedent was exposed to asbestos manufactured and/or supplied by [***2] all appellees during his employment with Babcock & Wilcox Company ("B & W"). For reasons discussed below, we affirm the order of the trial court.
Appellant's decedent, Eugene C. Eckenrod, began employment as a millwright in 1959 with B & W. From 1959 to 1982, decedent worked as a maintenance pipefitter, welder, and millwright at the Wallace Run facility. In March 1982, decedent was diagnosed as having lung cancer. He died in November 1982.
Appellant Eckenrod filed suit on November 15, 1984, alleging that her decedent died as a result of exposure to defendants' asbestos products while working at B & W. [*190] Most of the defendants moved for summary judgment in early 1987 based on lack of product identification. On March 7, 1987, [**52] the motions of GAF Corporation, John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., and Anchor Packing Company were granted and the complaints against them dismissed. On May 7, 1987, the trial court granted the remaining motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaints against each. 1 It is the May 7, 1987, order that appellants challenge herein.
[***3] Appellant Eckenrod challenges only the granting of summary judgment in favor of A-Best and Porter. Appellant Gage Company contends that the judgment was improper as to all defendants. 2 We have declared that when reviewing an order granting summary judgment, our function is to determine whether there exist issues of triable fact. Bobb v. Kraybill, 354 Pa.Super. 361, 511 A.2d 1379 (1986). We have further determined that:
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
375 Pa. Super. 187 *; 544 A.2d 50 **; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1425 ***
Jean E. ECKENROD, Administratrix of the Estate of Eugene C. Eckenrod, and Jean E. Eckenrod, in Her Own Right v. GAF CORPORATION, Raymark Industries, Inc., Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, A-Best Products Company, Garlock, Inc., John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., H.K. Porter Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Southern Textile Company, Formerly Southern Asbestos Company, the Pittsburgh Gage Company & Anchor Packing Company. Appeal of The PITTSBURGH GAGE COMPANY. Jean E. ECKENROD, Administratrix of the Estate of Eugene C. Eckenrod, and Jean E. Eckenrod, in Her Own Right, Appellant, v. GAF CORPORATION, Raymark Industries, Inc., Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, A-Best Products Company, Garlock, Inc., John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., H.K. Porter Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Southern Textile Co., Formerly Southern Asbestos Co., the Pittsburgh Gage Company & Anchor Packing Company
Subsequent History: Rearguments Denied July 12, 1988.
Prior History: [***1] Appeal from Order May 7, 1987, in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Civil, No. 1507 of 1984.
Appeal from judgment May 20, 1987, in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Civil, No. 1507 of 1984.
asbestos product, asbestos, products, summary judgment, summary judgment motion, manufactured, supplied
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, General Overview, Torts, Products Liability, Appropriateness, Opposing Materials