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.

In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. Vi v. Long-Lewis

July 25, 2011

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)
CHARLES CORLEY, ET AL.
v.
LONG-LEWIS, INC., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eduardo C. Robreno, J.

MEMORANDUM

Transferred from the Northern District of Alabama

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an asbestos personal injury case. Presently before the Court are two objections to Judge Rueter's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed April 15, 2011. (Doc. no. 76.) Plaintiffs object to Judge Rueter's grant of summary judgment for various Defendants on the one-year statute of limitations issue (doc. no. 79-1).*fn1 A separate group of Defendants object to Judge Rueter's denial without prejudice of summary judgment on the "one-disease" or "two-disease" question (doc. no. 78).*fn2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)(1)(c), "a judge of the Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id.

II. BACKGROUND

Oscar Allen Corley, the Executor of the Estate of Charles Corley, deceased, filed the instant action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama on May 7, 2009. (R&R at 1). Charles Corley ("Mr. Corley") passed away from mesothelioma on October 3, 2009. (Id.) The case was removed to the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, and it was subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL 875 on February 8, 2010. (Id.)

Plaintiffs seek recovery under the Alabama Wrongful Death Act, Ala. Code § 6-5-410. (Id.) Two separate sets of defendants filed two joint motions for summary judgment. (Id.) The first motion (doc. no. 38) concerns the one-year statute of limitations in Alabama. (See R&R at 1, Defs' Mot. Summ. J., doc. no. 38.) The second motion questions whether Alabama follows a "one-disease" or "two-disease" rule in asbestos cases. (See R&R at 1-2, Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., doc. no. 40.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Objections to Judge Rueter's Report and Recommendation Based on Alabama's Pre-1979 Statute of Limitations

Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming that because there was no dispute that Mr. Corley's last exposure to any of the products belonging to the defendants occurred on or before Mr. Corley's retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1973, Plaintiffs' claim is time-barred by the Alabama statute of limitations. (R&R at 2, citing Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at 2; Corley Dep., 8/25-27, 8/31, 2009 at 334-35.)

1. Statute of Limitations Under Alabama Law The one-year statute of limitations rule for pre-1979 asbestos cases is based on the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in Garrett v. Raytheon Co., Inc., 368 So. 2d 516 (Ala. 1979). Under Garrett, the one year statute of limitations begins to run on the last date of exposure. 368 So. 2d at 517-18; see also Ala. Code § 6-2-39 (repealed 1980). The Alabama legislature subsequently repealed section 6-2-39 and enacted the discovery rule for asbestos cases beginning on May 19, 1980.

The current version of the Alabama statute says:

(a) All civil actions must be commenced after the cause of action has accrued within the period prescribed in this article and not afterwards, unless ...


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.