Legal Opinion

White v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 30, 1995No. 3847PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge.

This appeal asks us to determine whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s, Harbison Walker’s, motion for *12summary judgment. The trial court ruled that appellants’, Harvey and Henrietta White’s, claim was time-barred as a matter of law by the statute of limitations. We, however, hold that the determination of whether appellants timely filed their complaint after discovering that appellant-husband suffered from asbestosis is one for the jury’s resolution. Thus, we reverse.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Appellants instituted this…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. United States v. KubrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Smith v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Penn Center House, Inc. v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Alan Schmidt v. John SkolasCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
  2. Childs v. HausseckerTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Summers v. CERTAINTEED CORP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Crouse v. Cyclops IndustriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Gruenwald v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API