Order Of Operations: Maryland’s Highest Court Analysis Of The Statute Of Repose And Discovery Rule’s Applicability To Asbestos Cases

by Husch Blackwell LLP
Contact

On March 28, 2018, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Maryland’s highest court, was asked to: (1) determine whether the state’s statute of repose was ambiguous as to when an injury and cause of action “arise” within the scope of the statute and, (2) discuss the applicability of the discovery rule in relation to the manifestation of a latent disease. The Court found that, in a case involving a steamfitter’s alleged asbestos exposure, the plaintiff’s claims were not barred as the date of his last exposure to asbestos containing products determined whether the statute of repose applied. The Court further held that the discovery rule applied to asbestos related cases.

Statue of Repose

Maryland’s statute of repose bars claims of injuries, including bodily injury and wrongful death, accruing more than twenty years after an improvement to real property becomes available for its intended use. The statute went into effect on June 30, 1970. In 1991, the state legislature amended the statute and stripped asbestos manufacturers of the statute’s protections. This exemption from the statute’s scope specifically encompassed injuries that resulted from exposure to asbestos dust, allowing plaintiffs alleging injuries as a result of asbestos a greater amount of time to raise their claims.

The case at issue, Duffy v. C.B.S. Corp., arose out of James F. Piper’s diagnosis of mesothelioma in 2013. 2018 W.L. 1516888 (Md. Mar. 28, 2018). Piper, through his personal representative June Diane Duffy, filed suit against thirty-three defendants including CBS, then Westinghouse. CBS was the company that originally sold and installed a turbine generator at the power plant where Piper worked as a steamfitter. Piper claimed that his illness was the result of asbestos fibers inhaled while working near other contractors installing the turbine’s insulation between May 3, 1970 and June 28, 1970.

CBS moved for summary judgment, arguing that Piper’s claims were barred by the statute of repose. Piper countered that the exposure itself constituted the injury and because the statute of repose was not law at that time of his exposure, it could not be retroactively applied to him. The trial court granted the motion in favor of CBS. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals, characterizing Piper’s injury as his diagnosis of mesothelioma in 2013, affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the basis that the cause of action did not “arise” or “accrue” until 2013.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland overturned the lower court’s ruling. Disagreeing with the lower court’s characterization of Piper’s diagnosis of mesothelioma as the point at which his cause of action “accrued”, the Court applied the ‘exposure approach’ and determined that Piper’s injury came into existence on the date of his last exposure to asbestos containing products. In its ensuing analysis, the Court found that the date of injury is the relevant period of time when determining the statute of repose’s applicability because “if there is no injury, there is no cause of action.” Id. at *9 (internal citations omitted).

In its reasoning, the Court heavily scrutinized the timelines of the statue’s passage, Piper’s injuries, and the construction of the turbine. Piper worked on the turbine from May 3, 1970 to June 28, 1970. The latter constituted Piper’s last date of exposure to asbestos containing products. The statute of repose, passed in 1970, specified that it did not apply to causes of action arising on or before June 30, 1970. The Court held that because Piper’s last date of exposure fell two days before the statute went into effect, his claim was not barred and thus summary judgment was granted in error.

Discovery Rule

The Court also examined the applicability of the discovery rule within the context of asbestos related cases. The discovery rule, Maryland precedent for nearly a century, states that a cause of action accrues “when a plaintiff in fact knows or reasonably should know of the wrong.” Id. at *11 (internal citations omitted). As applied to latent diseases, the rule had been held to mean that a plaintiff has a cause of action when she “ascertains, or through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have ascertained, the nature and cause of [her] injury.” Id. at *12 (internal citations omitted).  In Duffy, the Court clarified that, when the rule is applied to disease with incredibly long latency periods such as asbestos, plaintiffs often suffer injuries that occur well before they are discovered. The Court took issue with the Court of Special Appeals’ prioritization of when Piper’s causes of action accrued rather than when the injury arose in determining the statute of repose’s applicability.

Ultimately, the Court held that the point at which “…a cause of action ‘accrues’ determines when the discovery rule applies in relation to the manifestation of a latent disease, whereas when a cause of action ‘arises’ determines whether a statute applies in relation to exposure of asbestos, i.e. the injury leading to potential causes of action.” Id. at *13. Therefore, because Piper’s injury “arose” two days before the statute of repose went into effect, his claims were not barred. His cause of action subsequently “accrued” when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Conclusion

The Court’s ruling creates a new hurdle for defendants, particularly in asbestos related cases, as plaintiff’s last date of exposure is now relevant to whether plaintiff’s claims can be time-barred by the statute of repose. The date of diagnosis, usually when the injury is discovered, is merely when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrues and when the discovery rule goes into effect. Defendants must now engage in an analysis of the plaintiff’s alleged last date of exposure and delve deeper into the plaintiff’s work history to determine whether a statute of repose argument is applicable. Had the Court affirmed the trial court and appellate court’s rulings, plaintiffs who allege injury from asbestos exposure prior to 1970 resulting from an improvement to real property, would have found their claims time-barred. However, the Court found to the contrary and instead placed another obstacle defendants must anticipate and overcome in their litigation strategies.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Husch Blackwell LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Husch Blackwell LLP
Contact
more
less

Husch Blackwell LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.