## Facts

- Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. acquired and merged with Mundet Cork Corp. in February 1996; Mundet previously manufactured, sold, and installed asbestos insulation through a division.
- After the merger, Crown Cork faced numerous asbestos suits as Mundet’s successor and paid substantial sums in asbestos claims.
- Frank Ieropoli worked as a machinist from 1947 to 1979 and alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products.
- In 2000, Frank and Margaret Ieropoli sued Crown Cork and many other defendants in tort and related claims, alleging asbestos-related injury.
- Pennsylvania enacted 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1929.1, limiting certain successor asbestos liability to the fair market value of the predecessor’s total gross assets at the time of the merger and declaring liability above that cap “extinguished.”
- Crown Cork asserted it had already paid more than the statutory cap and argued the statute barred any further recovery, including the Ieropolis’ claims.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1929.1 violates Article I, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Remedies Clause) as applied to plaintiffs whose causes of action accrued before the statute’s effective date, where the statute would extinguish those claims against a successor corporation.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded.
- The court held § 1929.1 unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs with pre-enactment, accrued causes of action where the statute’s operation extinguishes the claim against the successor.
- The court rejected the characterization of the statute as merely limiting a remedy when, on the facts presented, its effect was to eliminate any recovery from Crown Cork for the already-accrued claim.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, § 11 protects vested rights in accrued causes of action; the legislature may not retroactively destroy such rights.
- A statute that, in application, leaves a plaintiff with no remedy against a defendant by eliminating an already-accrued claim functions as a substantive abolition of the cause of action, not a permissible adjustment of remedies.
- The legislature may modify or abolish causes of action prospectively, but retroactive extinguishment of accrued claims violates the Remedies Clause.
- An as-applied constitutional ruling may be limited to circumstances where statutory operation fully bars recovery on pre-existing claims, without deciding validity in prospective applications.

## Conclusion

The court held that applying § 1929.1 to bar recovery on asbestos claims that had accrued before the statute took effect violated the Pennsylvania Remedies Clause because it retroactively extinguished vested causes of action against the successor corporation.


Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp., 842 A.2d 919 (Pa. 2004)