Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOHN J. CIANFRANI AND MARY D. CIANFRANI v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN (10/05/84)

filed: October 5, 1984.

JOHN J. CIANFRANI AND MARY D. CIANFRANI, H/W, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION; JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION; RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC.; OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION; FORTY-EIGHT INSULATION, INC.; NICOLET INDUSTRIES, INC.; PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION; GAF CORPORATION; CELOTEX CORPORATION; ARMSTRONG CORK CORPORATION; UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC.; H.K. PORTER, INC.; SOUTHERN ASBESTOS COMPANY; J.P. STEVENS, INC.; EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC.; DELAWARE ASBESTOS & RUBBER CO.; PACOR, INC.; FIBREBOARD CORPORATION; KEENE CORPORATION, AMATEX CORPORATION, GARLOCK, INC.



No. 1650 October 1979, Appeal from the Orders of July 13, 1979, October 31, 1979 and December 6, 1979 by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Trial Division, Law, No. 2052 (89), Case No. 4, 1977.

COUNSEL

Marc P. Weingarten, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Joseph W. McGuire, Philadelphia, for appellees.

Wieand, Olszewski and Popovich, JJ. Popovich, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Olszewski

[ 334 Pa. Super. Page 3]

OPINION

This appeal follows the entry of summary judgment, due to expiration of the statute of limitations, against appellant's action for damages resulting from asbestos exposure.

Appellants filed a complaint in trespass and assumpsit in 1977, alleging damages arising from Mr. Cianfrani's exposure to asbestos while a pipefitter at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. The complaint named Johns-Manville Corporation and numerous other defendants, all engaged in the manufacture or supply of asbestos products. Further, the complaint alleged that Mr. Cianfrani came in contact with asbestos as he worked on ships both in dry dock and on the navigable waters of the United States.

Appellees answered the complaint and filed motions for summary judgment alleging that appellants were barred from bringing their action by the applicable statute of limitations. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2)(1976). By Opinion and Order of July 13, 1979, the motions of several defendants were granted. On October 31, 1979 and December 6, 1979, the motions of the remaining defendants were granted. The three orders are consolidated, upon appellants' petition, before this court.

Two issues are raised before us. First, appellant argues that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to when Mr. Cianfrani discovered his injury. We disagree.

A ruling on a motion for summary judgment "shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

[ 334 Pa. Super. Page 4]

    material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Pa.R.C.P., Rule 1035(b), 42 Pa.C.S. On appeal, the Superior Court need only determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Mattia v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.