Christine Pellegrini Busch

Successfully achieved Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmance of grant of summary judgment for asbestos defendant on basis of plaintiff's inability to satisfy the product identification criteria of Eckenrod v. GAF, 544 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 1988).

Successfully achieved summary judgment in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in favor of a wire and cable company.  Plaintiff was the estate of an electrician who died of lung cancer at age 49.  It was argued that (1) plaintiff failed to produce competent, non-speculative evidence that any of defendant's wire products used by the decedent contained asbestos; and (2) any exposure would have been de minimus in light of decedent's substantial frequent, regular and proximate exposure to a host of other products during his thirty year career.

Successfully achieved summary judgment in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in favor of refractory premises owner in asbestos premises liability claim.  Plaintiff's decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos while employed by an insulation contractor that was installing asbestos-containing block and pipe insulation on defendant's premises. He died at age 79 of mesothelioma.  It was argued that defendant premises owner owed no duty to warn decedent, who was the employee of an independent contractor, of the hazards created by his own work.  His employer, a sophisticated insulation contractor, had knowledge superior to the defendant premises owner regarding the dangers of the materials they used to perform their craft.

Successfully achieved summary judgment in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in favor of a boiler manufacturer in an asbestos case involving the death of an 82 year old pipe fitter from lung cancer.  It was argued that (1) plaintiff failed to produce any admissible evidence that the decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured, sold supplied or even specified for use by the boiler manufacturer; and (2) defendant boiler manufacturer could not be held liable for asbestos component parts it neither manufactured or supplied.

Successfully achieved summary judgment in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in favor of a manufacturer of precipitators installed at several power plants.  Plaintiff worked as an insulator and was diagnosed with mesothelioma at age 65.  He allegedly removed and installed asbestos insulation on several of defendant's precipitators throughout his career.  It was argued that (1) plaintiff's claims were extinguished by the Statute of Repose; and (2) plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that the defendant manufactured, sold, supplied or specified the use of any exterior insulation products for use on its precipitators.

Successfully achieved summary judgment in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in favor of insulation contractor in another household exposure claim in which the decedent died of mesothelioma at age 51.  Plaintiff alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos dust brought home on the clothes of her father, who worked as a carpenter at a local power generating plant.  It was argued that a contractor does not owe a duty to warn family members of bystanders to its activities.  The decedent had no direct contact with the defendant and there was no legally cognizable relationship between her and defendant.  Furthermore, decedent was not the intended user of insulation materials allegedly used by the defendant at her father's place of employment under a 402A analysis.

Successfully achieved summary judgment in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in favor of insulation contractor in a case in which the plaintiff alleged development of lung cancer at age 73 as a result of exposure to asbestos insulation materials used in his presence by the defendant at a local oil refinery.  Plaintiff subjectively believed that the insulation materials being used contained asbestos during the time period in question.  It was argued (1) that plaintiff failed to present any competent, non-speculative evidence that plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing product for which the defendant was responsible; and (2) defendant could not be held strictly liable for plaintiff's asbestos-related injuries since it was not a "seller" of or "engaged in the business of selling" asbestos products, but merely an end user of those products.

Successfully achieved summary judgment in Delaware Superior Court for New Castle County in a household exposure claim involving alleged exposure to crane frictions.  Plaintiff's husband was allegedly present when crane frictions were changed, which created dust that he brought home on his clothes which were later laundered by plaintiff.  It was argued that defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiff and there was insufficient evidence presented that the crane frictions contained asbestos.