IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARY ANN MEYER, Executrix of the
`Estate of JAMES MEYER, deceased and
`MARY ANN MEYER, in her own right,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`\2
`
`HUNTER SALES CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`CIVIL DIVISION
`No. GD18-000234
`
`Code: 012 - ASBESTOS
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`BASED UPON LACK OF PRODUCT
`IDENTIFICATION
`
`Filed on Behalf of Defendants
`HUNTER SALES CORPORATION
`
`Counsel of Record for this Party:
`
`Andrew F. Adomitis, Esquire
`PA 1.D. No. 49689
`
`Leo Gerard Daly, Esquire
`PA 1.D. No. 51715
`
`LrrcHFIELD CAVO LLP
`
`One Gateway Center, Suite 600
`420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`
`(412) 291-8240
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARY ANN MEYER, Executrix of the CIVIL DIVISION
`Estate of JAMES MEYER, deceased and
`MARY ANN MEYER, in her own right, No. GD18-000234
`Plaintiffs,
`V.
`
`HUNTER SALES CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON
`LACK OF PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
`
`AND NOW, comes Defendant Hunter Sales Corporation, by and through its attorney,
`Andrew F. Adomitis, Esquire of Litchfield Cavo LLP, and files the following Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment:
`
`1. Plaintiffs, May Ann Meyer, Executrix of the Estate of James Meyer, deceased and
`May Ann Meyer, in her own right, (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), initiated this action
`to recover damages for injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of exposure to various
`asbestos-containing products alleged to have been manufactured, distributed and/or supplied by
`
`the Defendants,
`
`2. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, to satisfy its prima facie burden of production and
`avold summary judgment, a plaintiff claiming injury as a result of exposure to an asbestos-
`containing product “must present evidence to show that he inhaled asbestos fibers shed by the
`
`specific [defendant’s] product.” Eckenrod v. GAF Corporation, et al., 375 Pa. Super. 187, 191,
`
`544 A.2d 50, 52 (1988), allocatur denied, 520 Pa. Super. 605, 553 A.2d 968 (1988). “Therefore,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a plaintift must establish more than the presence of asbestos in the workplace; he must prove that
`
`he worked in the vicinity of the product’s use.” Ibid.
`
`3. “The mere fact that [a defendant’s] asbestos products came into the facility does not
`show that the [plaintiff] ever breathed the specific asbestos products or that he worked where
`
`these asbestos products were delivered.” Id., 375 Pa. Super. at 191, 544 A.2d at 52.
`
`4. Furthermore, “our Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to eliminate the poker game
`aspects of the litigation and compel the players to put their cards face-up on the table before the
`
`trial begins.” Roland v. Kravco, Inc., 355 Pa. Super. 493, 501, 513 A.2d 1029, 1034 (1986). As
`
`such, the purpose of Pa. R.C.P. 1035.1 is to “pierce the pleading” and ascertain whether evidence
`
`sufficient to establish a viable claim exists.
`
`5. In fact, where injuries are claimed to have resulted from exposure to asbestos-
`containing products, summary judgment must be entered if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate
`“frequency of the use of the product and the regularity of the plaintiff’s employment in proximity
`
`thereto”. Eckenrod, 375 Pa. Super. at 192, 544 A.2d at 53.
`
`6. Despite exhaustive discovery, Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence that
`Hunter Sales Corporation manufactured, distributed or supplied any asbestos-containing product
`
`to which Plaintiffs have been exposed.
`
`7. Without such evidence, neither a material issue of fact nor any viable claim exists
`against Hunter Sales Corporation and, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2, judgment must be entered
`
`in its favor and against Plaintiffs as a matter of law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant Hunter Sales Corporation requests that judgment be entered in
`
`its favor and all claims and cross-claims asserted by all other parties be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`LITCHFIELD CAVO L
`
`By:
`
`ANDREW F. ADOMITIS, ESQUIRE
`LEO GERARD DALY, ESQUIRE
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`
`Hunter Sales Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Andrew F. Adomitis, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within
`Motion for Summary Judgment based upon lack of Product Identification of Hunter Sales
`Corporation was served via U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon Plaintiffs’ counsel as
`identified below, and a copy of the cover letter thereof has been forwarded via e-mail, to all
`
`known defense counsel on this 3™ day of May, 2018:
`
`ANDREW F. ADOMITIS, ESQUIRE
`LEO GERARD DALY, ESQUIRE
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`
`Hunter Sales Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARY ANN MEYER, Executrix of the CIVIL DIVISION
`
`Estate of JAMES MEYER, deceased and
`
`MARY ANN MEYER, in her own right, No. GD18-000234
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`HUNTER SALES CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`ORDER OF COURT
`
`And now, to-wit, this day of , 2018, it is hereby ORDERED,
`
`ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Hunter Sales
`Corporation is granted. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of Hunter Sales Corporation
`and all claims and cross-claims asserted against Hunter Sales Corporation are dismissed with
`
`prejudice.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`J.
`THE HONORABLE PATRICK M. CONNELLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`