Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that two plaintiffs alleging that exposure to asbestos caused their illnesses cannot have their cases dismissed on summary judgment simply because the plaintiffs’ doctor opined that their illnesses are attributable both to exposure to asbestos and to smoking.

According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, the court’s ruling in Summers v. Certainteed Corp. and Nybeck v. Union Carbide Corp. could impact many cases beyond asbestos litigation by setting the standard of review of summary judgments as a de novo review, rather than an abuse of discretion standard of review.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.