Mesothelioma victims have no standing to challenge Penn. successor liability limit
A divided Pennsylvania Superior Court has rejected a challenge to a statute that limits the liability of corporate successors to asbestos manufacturers to the market value of the predecessor corporation at the time of the acquisition. The majority ruled that the plaintiffs, all families of individuals who died of asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
Under 15 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 1929.1—both sides agree—Crown Cork & Seal Co., a Pennsylvania company, has already paid out more that the fair market value of asbestos manufacturer Mundet when CC&S purchased Mundet in 1963 and is protected from paying any more for asbestos claims to Pennsylvania plaintiffs.
Although the plaintiffs agree that this is the effect of the state, they argue that it is unconstitutional because it burdens interstate commerce and treats Pennsylvania residents differently than out-of-state residents.
The majority of the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the statute because they were not within a “zone of interest” that would be protected—the plaintiffs simply weren’t affected enough to have a real complaint, according to the majority. The court observed that, although the statute barred the plaintiffs’ claims against CC&S, there were other joint tortfeasors who were potentially liable.
The minority argued that the plaintiffs did have standing to make the challenge and that the Pennsylvania statute was unconstitutional for several reasons. The minority opinion notes that, if CC&S had been an out-of-state corporation, these Pennsylvania plaintiffs could have recovered from the company for their injuries. But because CC&S was a Pennylvania corporation, the claims were barred. In this way, in-state and out-of-state corporations are treated different—in the minority’s view—in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The same distinction violates the Commerce Clause—according to the minority opinion—because it gives in-state corporations a protection not available to out-of-state companies.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs have said they will appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
For the full story, go to the National Law Journal.
