IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`ROBERT J. GLASS and JOAN L. GLASS, his
`wife,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`CIVIL DIVISION – ASBESTOS
`
`No. GD 20-010148
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND SUPPORTING BRIEF
`
`Defendants.
`
`Filed on behalf of Defendant,
`Gardner Denver, Inc.
`
`Counsel of Record for This Party:
`
`Edward A. Miller, Esquire
`PA ID No. 58954
`
`Melissa D. Cochran, Esquire
`PA ID No. 90930
`
`Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
`11 Grandview Circle, Suite 200
`Canonsburg, PA 15317
`(724) 749-3140
`FAX (724) 749-3143
`PA.Asbestos@steptoe-johnson.com
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CIVIL DIVISION – ASBESTOS
`
`No. GD 20-010148
`
`ROBERT J. GLASS and JOAN L. GLASS, his
`wife,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant, Gardner Denver, Inc., by and through its undersigned attorneys, moves for the
`entry of summary judgment in its favor, and in support thereof states:
`1.
`Plaintiffs claim that Robert J. Glass developed asbestosis as a result of being
`exposed to asbestos while working as an insulator from 1956 until 1985.
`2.
`Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Glass was exposed to an asbestos-containing product
`manufactured or sold by Gardner Denver.
`3.
`Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence establishing that Gardner Denver was
`the manufacturer, distributor, or supplier of an asbestos-containing product that Mr. Glass
`worked with or in close proximity to, on a frequent and regular basis, so that a jury could
`reasonably infer that his contact with it was of such nature as to raise a reasonable inference that
`Mr. Glass inhaled asbestos fibers that emanated from the product. As such, Plaintiffs cannot
`prove that Defendant, Gardner Denver, Inc. manufactured or sold a product that was a substantial
`contributing factor in Mr. Glass’s development of disease.
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gardner Denver, Inc., respectfully requests that this Court
`grant its Motion for Summary Judgment, and enter an Order dismissing all claims asserted
`against it, including cross claims, with prejudice.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
`
`By: Melissa D. Cochran
`Edward A. Miller, Esquire
`Melissa D. Cochran, Esquire
`
`Counsel for Defendant,
`Gardner Denver, Inc.
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CIVIL DIVISION – ASBESTOS
`
`No. GD 20-010148
`
`ROBERT J. GLASS and JOAN L. GLASS, his
`wife,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ORDER OF COURT
`
`AND NOW, on this ________ day of ____________________, 2021, upon consideration
`of the Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief of Defendant, Gardner Denver, Inc.,
`it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said motion is GRANTED. All
`claims against Defendant, Gardner Denver, Inc., including cross claims, are hereby dismissed
`with prejudice.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`J.
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CIVIL DIVISION – ASBESTOS
`
`No. GD 20-010148
`
`ROBERT J. GLASS and JOAN L. GLASS, his
`wife,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant, Gardner Denver, Inc., by and through its undersigned attorneys, submits the
`following Brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
`I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Plaintiffs claim that Robert J. Glass developed asbestosis as a result of being exposed to
`asbestos while working as an insulator from 1956 until 1985. Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Glass was
`harmed by an asbestos-containing product allegedly manufactured or sold by Gardner Denver.
`Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that proves that Mr. Glass was in close proximity on a
`frequent and regular basis to an asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by Gardner
`Denver.
`
`II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
`
`Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.3 requires that a plaintiff, in response to a motion for summary
`judgment, must identify one or more issues of fact arising from the evidence in the record
`controverting the evidence cited in support of the motion for summary judgment. Per
`Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.4, affidavits submitted as part of a summary judgment response "shall be made
`with personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall
`show affirmatively that the signer is competent to testify to the matters stated therein."
`Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.1 requires that summary judgment be entered where a plaintiff fails to establish
`specific facts in support of his claims against a moving party.
`To defeat a motion for summary judgment in an asbestos lawsuit, a plaintiff must present
`evidence proving that he breathed asbestos fibers shed by a specific manufacturer’s product and
`that this inhalation of asbestos was a legal or factual cause of the alleged development of an
`
`

`

`asbestos-related disease. Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50 (Pa.Super 1988). A plaintiff
`must demonstrate more than the presence of asbestos in the workplace; he must prove that he
`worked with or worked in the vicinity of the product’s use. Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d
`556, 563 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Eckenrod, supra.). Summary judgment is proper when the
`plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant’s product was the cause of plaintiff’s injury.
`In considering whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that a defendant’s asbestos-
`containing product was the cause of plaintiff’s injury, the well-settled law of our Commonwealth
`requires that trial courts apply the “frequency, regularity, proximity standard.” Gregg v. V–J
`Auto Parts, Company, 943 A.2d 216, 226 (Pa. 2007). This standard, originally set forth in
`Eckenrod, requires a plaintiff attempting to defeat a motion for summary judgment to present
`evidence concerning “the frequency of use of the product and the regularity of plaintiff’s
`employment in proximity thereto.” Id., at 53. The trial court, in evaluating this evidence
`concerning frequency, regularity and proximity of exposure must then make a reasoned
`assessment of whether a jury would be justified in making “the necessary inference of a
`sufficient causal connection between the defendant’s product and the asserted injury.” Gregg, at
`227. The law is clear; casual or minimal exposure to asbestos is not frequent or regular and does
`not create an issue of fact that can survive summary judgment. Vanaman v. DAP, Inc., 966 A.2d
`603 (Pa. Super. 2009). Further, it is not enough for the plaintiff to simply place the defendant’s
`product in the work place or at the jobsite. “The mere fact that [Gardner Denver’s product] came
`into the facility does not show that the [plaintiff] ever breathed these specific asbestos products
`or that [he/she] worked where these asbestos products were delivered.” Eckenrod v. GAF Corp.,
`544 A.2d 50, 53 (1988). The plaintiff has the burden of coming forward with evidence of actual
`exposure.
`Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence establishing that Mr. Glass worked with or
`around an asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by Defendant, Gardner Denver let
`alone with the sufficient frequency, regularity and proximity that would permit a jury to
`reasonably conclude that this alleged exposure was a substantial contributing factor to Mr.
`Glass’s alleged development of asbestosis. Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of proof and
`summary judgment must as a matter of law be entered in favor of Gardner Denver.
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant, Gardner Denver, Inc., respectfully
`requests that this Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and enter an order dismissing all
`claims asserted against it in this lawsuit, including cross-claims, with prejudice.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
`
`By: Melissa D. Cochran
`Edward A. Miller, Esquire
`Melissa D. Cochran, Esquire
`
`Counsel for Defendant,
`Gardner Denver, Inc.
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for
`Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief was sent on this 25th day of January 2021 via e-mail to
`Plaintiff’s counsel identified below and to all know defense counsel:
`
`Cori J. Kapusta, Esquire
`Kapusta Deihl & Schweers
`445 Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite 500
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
`
`By: Melissa D. Cochran
`Edward A. Miller, Esquire
`Melissa D. Cochran, Esquire
`
`Counsel for Defendant,
`Gardner Denver, Inc.
`
`12151859.1
`
`