## Facts

- In 1989, Herbert L. Daley was diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis (nonmalignant) and squamous-cell carcinoma of the right lung (malignant).
- In October 1990, Herbert and Evelyn Daley filed a personal-injury action seeking damages for work-related asbestosis and lung cancer.
- That 1990 action settled in 1994; U.S. Supply Company and Duro–Dyne Corporation were not defendants in the 1990 action.
- Approximately sixteen years after the initial diagnoses, Herbert was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a distinct asbestos-related cancer.
- The Daleys filed a new action against A.W. Chesterton, Inc., U.S. Supply, Duro–Dyne, and others, alleging the mesothelioma arose from the same occupational asbestos exposure as the earlier diseases.
- During the appellate process, Chesterton settled and was no longer a party; U.S. Supply and Duro–Dyne remained as appellants.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania’s separate-disease (two-disease) rule permits separate lawsuits for more than one distinct malignant asbestos-related disease arising from the same exposure.
2. Whether a prior action resolving asbestos-related lung cancer bars a later action for mesothelioma under claim-preclusion principles.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order reversing summary judgment for U.S. Supply and Duro–Dyne.
- The Court held the separate-disease rule permits separate actions for distinct malignant asbestos-related diseases (including lung cancer and later mesothelioma) caused by the same exposure.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing the mesothelioma claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s separate-disease rule, each distinct asbestos-related disease constitutes a separate, actionable injury that accrues when the disease becomes diagnosable.
- The rule is not limited to a nonmalignant disease followed by a malignant disease; it also applies where the later-manifesting condition is a different malignant disease.
- Requiring plaintiffs to recover in an initial action for speculative, future malignant diseases is improper; later-manifesting distinct diseases may be litigated when they occur.
- Claim preclusion does not bar a subsequent action for a later-accruing, distinct asbestos-related disease that did not exist and could not reasonably have been litigated in the earlier action.
- The possibility of multiple lawsuits is an accepted consequence of disease-specific accrual in asbestos litigation, balancing repose concerns with compensation for later-manifesting harms.

## Conclusion

Pennsylvania recognizes separate causes of action for distinct asbestos-related diseases as they manifest, including multiple different malignant diseases from the same exposure; a resolved lung-cancer case does not bar a later mesothelioma action.


Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 614 Pa. 335, 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012)