Document 82k1Ddwm6KzX3b27Xno0rObvo

i w BROOKMAN, ROSENBERG, BROWN & SANDLER ATTORNEYS AT LAW ____ ONE PENN SQUARE WEST SEVENTEENTH FLOOR 30 SOUTH FIFTEENTH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT TELEPHONE: (215)569-4000 TELECOPIER: (215) 569-2222 TOLL FREE: (800)369-0899 CCS-75 MELVIN BROOKMAN (1926-2000) HOWELL K. ROSENBERG LAURENCE H. BROWN CARYL. SANDLER JOHN M. D1DONATO** NEIL B. KJTROSSER STEVEN J. COOPERSTEIN DAVID R HALPERN** RONDA A. JAFFEE** LEONARD F. FELDMAN ** PAUL J. RILEY NEW JERSEY OFFICE 306 WEST SOMERDALE ROAD VOORHEES, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856)354-1602 Telecopier: (856) 354-9739 JOHN M. D]DONATO NJ MANAGING ATTORNEY "ALSO MEMBER OF NEW JERSEY BAR March 7,2002 via HAND DELIVERY Honorable Allan L- Tereshko Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas 679 City HaU Philadelphia, PA 19107 Re: IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. PCCP NO. 001. OCTOBER TERM 1986 I PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY. INC. Defendant's Counsel: Dear Judge Tereshko: Defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown") has filed a global motion for summary judgment based on 15 Pa.C.SA.. 1929.1. This is dieresponse on behalfofall ofthe cases subjectto the motion in whichtheplaintiffis represented by Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler. Plaintiffs oppose the Crown motion for a|l ofthe reasons set forth below. I. THE STATUTE DOES NOT ESTABLISH A LIABILITY DEFENSE First, summaryjudgmentis inappropriate becausethe statute at issue does not establisha defenseto the JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 2 claims against Crown inthese cases. The statute sets forth a formula for capping the total cumulative responsibility forasbestos-related claimsofcoiporationsthat meet certain criteria (designed to benefit only Crown). The statute does not make the corporation immune from lawsuits, however. Tothe contrary, the statuteprovides that: "such corporation shall have no responsibility forsuccessor asbestos-related liabilities in excess ofsuch limitation." 1929.1(aXl)* In otherwords, the liabilities may exist butthe corporation does nothavetohonorthem Inrtfy^ farfromestablishing aprocedural mechanism forgaining dismissal from lawsuits, the lawprovides thatthe eligible corporation's assets "... shall be exemptfromrestraint, attachment, and executiononjudgments..."forasbestosrelated claims. 15Pa.C.S.A. 1929.1(bXl)- Thus, itis clearthat the plan oftirestatute is to attempt to insulate Crown from answering forjudgments against it Nowhere does the statute make Crown immune or otherwise provide authority for a pretrial dismissal of Crown on that basis, however.1 Indeed, the distinctionis a potentially crucial one foraplaintiff. In acaseinwhich aplaintiffsettles with somedefendants and takes othersto trial, there canbe a substantial difference inrecovery for aplaintiffdepending upon whetherthe statute at issue entitles Crown topretrialjudgment IfCrown is not entitledto pretrialjudgment, then itmaybe assigned a share ofthe liability verdict, and ifthe statute renders the plaintiffunableto collect Crown's shareofthe verdict, then theplaintiffcan call upon the otherliable defendants to fund Crown's share. Raker v. AC and S. 562 Pa. 290, 755 A2d 664, 672 (2000). Seg also 42 Pa.C.SJL 7102(b). As the legislative history shows, the legislature did not intend to require an asbestos victim to bear the loss of 1 The legislature could easily have drafted the statute so as to entitle Crown tojudgment, by eliminating completely successor liability for a corporation in Crown's circumstances. It chose not to do so, however, instead providing a formula for determining when Crown would not have to pay judgments entered on its asbestos-related successor liability. It is appropriate, moreover, that the issue of whether Crown has reached the statutory cap be litigated when a plaintiffhas ajudgment against Crown, rather than in the abstract JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 3 compensation caused by the benefit thelegislaturehas given to Crown, ratherthan to have intended that tire victim be compensated, to the fullest extent possible, from other sources. During debate in the Senate, Senator Stack stated: Now, I know many of my colleagues are concerned about insuring that individuals injured by asbestos receivejust compensation, but it should be these companies that were actually involved in the production and installation of asbestos that should bear the cost of compensating individuals exposed to asbestos and suffering health problems. 2001 LegislativeJournal -Senate 1232 (December 11,2001) (a copy ofrelevantpages fromthe Senate Journal is appended hereto as Exhibit "A"). The intentto allow injured plaintiffs to recoverfortheirinjuries can best be effectuated by allowingajuryto determinewhether Crown is liable forthe plaintiff's injuries, ratherthan to allow pretrial judgment in favor ofCrown. n. THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THESE PLA HamaFS Even ifthe statute can be read as authorizing summaryjudgmentifCrown has metthe statutory criteria for its liability cap, Crownwould notbe entitledtojudgment because it would be unconstitutional to apply the statute to these cases, which embody claims against Crown thathad vested before this statute was enacted.2 Article 1, 11 ofthePeraisylvaniaConstitutionprovides inrelevantpart that evetymanforan injury donehim in his ...person... shall have remedy by due course oflawOurcourtshave heldthatthisprovision does not remove fromthe legislature the powerto abolish totally a cause ofaction. Sineerv. Sheppard.464Pa. 387.346 A.2d 897,903 (1975), or to abolish a cause ofaction against a particular class ofdefendants, Sherwood v. Elgart,383Pa. 110,117 A.2d 899,901 (1955). However, the legislature cannot constitutionally extinguish a 2 Pursuant to PaJLCiv.P. 235, plaintiffs are providing to the Attorney General ofPennsylvania a notice of their claims that 15 Pa.C.SA. 1929.1 is unconstitutional. JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 4 vested cause ofaction or an accrued claim. Gibson v. Commonwealth. 490 Pa. 156,415 A.2d 80,83 (1980). A cause of action in tort accrues on the date of accident or injury. Id. Underthis constitutional principle, courts ofthis Commonwealthhave repeatedly declined to apply newlyenacted substantive lawto tort claims that had already accrued. In Gibson v. Commonwealth, supra, die court was faced with an appeal from the dismissal ofa lawsuit filed against the Commonwealth arising out ofthe allegedlynegligent supervision ofadam. Afterthe damage occurred forwhich theplaintififesought compensation, the legislature passed a lawcreating sovereign immunity. The Commonwealthpreliminarily objected to die Complaint, claiming that the statutemade it immune from the lawsuit In response, the Commonwealth Court granted the objections, dismissing the lawsuit The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's eliminationofaremedyindamages fromthe CommonwealthviolatedArticle 1, 11 ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution. In so doing, the court stated that, underthat constitutional provision, "It is well-settled thatthe Legislature may not extinguish a right ofaction which has already accrued to a claimant" 415 A.2d at 83. Accord. Garveyv. Rosanelli. 144 Pa. Cmwlth. 588,601 A.2d 1334,1337. allocaturdenied. 532 Pa. 648,614 A.2d 1144(1992). Justas the courtshave applied this principleto the grant ofimmunityto aparty defendant, the courtshave prohibitedthe abrogation ofa cause ofaction based on the elimination ofa right to relief. In Rebel v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co.. 340 Pa. 313,16 A.2d 534 (1940), the plaintiffsued his employer for his contraction of silicosis. The basis ofthe lawsuit was the employer's alleged violation ofa 1905 statute that required the employerto have sufficient means ofexhaust to avoid the employee's exposureto silicadust Theplaintiffwas diagnosed with silicosis in 1935. A venfict inhis iavorwasupheld on appeal. In affirming theplaintifPsjudgment, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that a 1937 repeal ofthe 1905 statute JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 5 removed the basis ofthe negligence case against it. The court held that: "The vested rightunder the provisions ofthe Act of 1905, supra, which plaintiffhad immediately upon the injury occurring in 1935, could not be impaired by the laterenacted repealing statute." 16A.2dat537. Further, thecourtheldthattopermittherepeal to apply to a cause ofaction that became complete beforethe repeal would be a denial ofdue process. 16 A~2d at 537-539. Similarly, in Stroback v. Camaioni. 449 Pa. Super. 395,674 A.2d 257. allocatur denied. 545 Pa. 674, 682 A.2d 306 (1996), a defendant in an automobile accident case attempted to excludeproofofmedical bills that had been paid by a medical insurer on behalfofthe plaintiff. The accident had occurred before enactment ofan amendment to the MotorVehicle Financial Responsibility Lawthat clearly extinguishedthe plaintiffs right to recoversuch medical expenses. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled thatthe statute had to be interpreted not to apply to the accident that had occurred before enactment of the amendment so as to avoid the extinguishment ofa rightthat had already accrued. Finally, in Jenkins v. Hospital ofthe Medical College of Pennsylvania. 401 Pa. Super. 604,585 A.2d 1091 (1991), affirmed, 535 Pa 252,634 A.2d 1099 (1993), the Pennsylvania Superior Courtruled that itwould be unconstitutional to applythe statutory extinguishmentofa cause ofactionforwrongful birth toa cause ofactionraisingthattheory ofrecovery whenthe allegedly wrongful birth had occurred prior to the enactment ofthe statute. These cases establishbeyond doubt thatthe statute at issueherein cannot constitutionally be appliedto the cases that arethe subject ofCrown's instant motion, all ofwhich accruedbefore the statutebecame law. In apparent recognition ofthestatute's unconstitutionality on this ground, Crown'smotion takes greatpainsto characterizethe statute as onethat"variesthe remedies" availableto these plaintiffs. This spuriousformulation does not save the statute from the constitutional challenge to its retroactive effect Calling the statutory scheme JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 6 one that has `Varied" the remedies does not make it so. Crown seeks complete dismissal from these cases. If, as Crown contends, the statute authorizes grant ofjudgment forCrown, then the legislaturehas extinguished these plaintiffs' remedies against Crown. It appears that Crown believes that the sense inwhich theplaintiffs' remedies havebeen `Varied" is that ifthe plaintiffs had been able to bring their claims before Crownreached thestatutory cap on its liability, they would have had a remedy, but now that Crown has reached its cap, they do not have a remedy. It is onlyby anintolerably cynical twisting ofwords that this elimination ofremedy can be termed amere variation.3 It isplain that application ofthe statutory cap to dismiss these plaintiffs' claims against Crown would violate Article 1, 11 ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution.4 III. THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMERCE CLAUSE Crown's summaryjudgment motion also must be denied because the statute underwhich it claims an entitlementto dismissal is unconstitutional on its face as it is in violation ofthe Commerce Clause ofthe United States Constitution, U.S. Const Art I, 8, cl. 3. It is well established that the federal Commerce Clause denies states the powerto burden the interstate flowofarticles ofcommerce. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines. Inc..514U.S. 175,1 ISS.Ct. 1331 (19951: Annenbere v. Commonwealth. 562Pa. 570.757A.2d 333. 3 Furthermore, in Stroback v. Camaioni. supra, ifthe new statute had been held to apply, the plaintiff could not have recovered any ofhis medical bills that had been paid by other insurance, but if the new statute did not apply, he could recover only the excess over $10,000.00. This certainly comes closer to a "variation" ofremedies than the `Variation" claimed by Crown here, yet the Superior Court found it constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to deprive the plaintiff ofthe ability to recover medical expenses greater than $10,000.00. 4 It is clear that the constitution requires that the legislature not eliminate a remedy for a person's injury, even ifthe person retains another cause of action, and even ifthe retained cause of action is against the same defendant. Jenkins v. Hospital of the Medical College of Pennsylvania. 585 A.2d at 1098. Thus, it is no answer to the constitutional question raised that the plaintiffs may recover from other defendants. JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 7 335 (1998), cert, denied. 531 U.S. 959,121 S.Ct. 385 (2000). This constitutes aprohibition against treating a domestic corporation differently from a foreign corporation.. As the Supreme Courthas stated, "This `negative' aspect ofthe Commerce Clause prohibits economic protectionism - - that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors." NewEnergy Company nflndiana v. Limbach. 486 U.S. 269,273,108 S.Ct. 1803 (1988). Further, "... where simple economic protectionism is effected by state legislation, a virtuallyperse rule ofinvalidityhas been erected" City ofPhiladelnhia v. New Jersey. 437 U.S. 617,624,98 S.Ct. 2531 (1978). There can be no question that the statute here in issue constitutes precisely the type of economic protectionism prohibited by the federal Commerce Clause. The statute limits "...the cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities ofa domestic business corporation thatwas incorporated inthis Commonwealthprior to May 1,2001..." 15Pa.C.S.A.1929.1(aXl). A domestic corporation is one incorporated under the laws ofPennsylvania. 15Pa.C.S.A.102. There is no statutory limit on the successorasbestos-related liabilities of a corporation that was not incorporated in Pennsylvania. Thus, the statute isblatant economicprotectionism; it grants a clearcompetitive advantage to a Pennsylvaniacorporation byputting a cap on its liabilities. Thishasthe inevitable effect ofincreasing the liabilities ofout-of-state corporations, thus burdening theirinterests in a way prohibited by the Commerce Clause. There is a wealth ofcases thatplainly demonstrate the constitutional infirmity ofthe instant statute. Perhapsmostpertinent is Annenbere v. Commonwealth, supra. There, the Pennsylvania Supreme Courthad before it ataxation statute in whichPennsylvania citizens had to pay personalpropertytax onthe value ofcertain stock. The statute was drafted in such away that the tax was due only on the stock ofcorporations that were neither incorporated in Pennsylvania nor did business in Pennsylvania. The court held that: JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 8 The discrimination against foreign corporations, and the preferential treatment afforded corporations which were either incorporated in Pennsylvania or do business in Pennsylvania, is plain to see. It is beyond peradventure that the 4821 facially discriminates against interstate commerce. 757 A2d at337. Because ofthe facially discriminatory nature ofthe statute, die courtnoted that the burdenwas on the Commonwealthto establish that the law "advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonably nondiscriminatoiy alternatives." Id., quotingNewEnergy Co. oflndiana v. Limhach. 486 U.S. at 278. Similarly, in Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Commission. 429U.S. 318.97 S.Ct. 599 (1977),die United States Supreme Court reviewed a New York statute that imposed a transfer tax on certain securities transactions. The scheme ofthe legislation called for aheaviertax ontransactions involving an out-of-state sale than transactions involving in-state sales. The Courtheld that: "The obvious effect ofthe tax is to extend a financial advantage to sales on theNew York exchanges at the expense ofthe regional {changes." 429U.S. at331. Ultimately, the Courtinvalidated the law, statingthat: "Because it imposes agreatertaxliability onout-of state sales than on in-state sales, the New York transfer tax,... falls short ofthe substantially evenhanded treatment demanded by the Commerce Clause." 429 U.S. at 332. Moreover, the cases make clearthat the reach ofthe Commerce Clause is not limited to instances of discrimination intaxation. In City ofPhiladelphia v. NewJersey, supra, the Supreme Courtstruckdowna New Jersey lawthat prohibited the importation intoNewJerseyofwaste materialsthat originated outsideofthestate. The Third Circuit, inJuzwin v. Asbestos Corporation. Ltd.. 900F.2d 686 (3d Cir.), cert, denied. 498 U.S. 896, 111 S.Ct. 246(1990), reviewed a NewJersey statute oflimitationstollingprovision. Therelevant limitations period for an action to recoverdamages forasbestos-caused personal injuries wastwo years. However, the JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 9 tollingprovision excited from the statutoryperiod any time in which a defendant that was not incorporated in NewJersey had no corporate office there, was not registered to do business there, and had no appointed agent for service in the state. In Juzwin. the plaintiffsued Carey Canada, Inc., more than two years afterthe plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis. Carey Canada's circumstances fitprecisely the criteriaofthe tolling statute. In the trial court, Carey Canada moved for summaryjudgment on statute oflimitations grounds. Itsmotion was denied. On appeal, theThird Circuit reversed, holding that the tolling statute was facially discriminatory under the Commerce Clausebecause it applied to out-of-slate corporations but not to NewJersey corporations. 900 F.2d at 689. In reviewing whether there existed a legitimate state purpose that could not be served by nondiscriminatory means, the courtnoted thatthe test must be applied"with considerablerigor,"and is"virtually aperse rule ofinvalidity." Id. The court found that the state could notjustify the statute underthat standardof heightened review. Here, it iscertain that the Commonwealth cannotjustify the discriminatorytreatmentaffordedto out-of state corporations, as the reasonforthe statute is to benefit a single Pennsylvania corporation. Crown Cork& Seal. Ifthe Commonwealth's legitimatepurpose wereto limitthe lawofsuccessor liability, itsurely couldhave done so across the board. This statute clearly, palpably, and plainly violatesthe CommerceClause ofthe United States Constitution. As a result. Crown's summary judgment motion must be denied. IV. THE STATUTE VIOLATES VARIOUS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS A. The Statute Constitutes A Denial Of Equal Protection Further, the statute violates several other constitutional provisions. The statute's discriminationagainst out-of-state corporations, as well as running afoul ofthe Commerce Clause, mustbe found to be a denialofequal protection. In WHYY. Inc, v. Borough ofGlassboro. 393 U.S-117,89 S.Ct 286 (1968), the United States JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 10 Supreme Court reviewed a NewJersey lawthat exempted certain nonprofit corporations from payingreal estate taxes. Among the criteria for exemptionwas that the corporation had been incorporated inNew Jersey. The Court found the statute unconstitutional, holding that the disparate treatment ofdomestic and foreign corporations was violative ofthe out-of-state corporation's right to equal protection. The same flawclearly infects the statute upon which Crown seeksjudgment In addition, the removal from an injured plaintiffoftherightto recoverfrom only Pennsylvania corporations whose liability isbased onthe rules ofsuccessorliability deprivesthe plaintiffof equal protection. See Mover v. Phillips. M.D.. 462 Pa. 395,341 A.2d 441 (1975) (statute's exception of defamation claims from actions that survive the death ofthe injured party is a violation ofthe constitutional right to equal protection). B. The Law Is An Unconstitutional Exercise Of Legislative Power (1) The Statute Sets An Unconstitutional Limit On Personal Injury Damages The statute also violates several state constitutional provisions that limit the power ofthe legislature. First, the Pennsylvania Constitution permits the legislature to pass laws limiting the compensationto be paid by employers to injured employees, but goes on to state that inno other cases shall the General Assembly limit the amountto berecovered forinjuriesresulting in death, orforinjuries topersons orproperty,..." Pennsylvania Constitution, article 3, 18. Here, the legislature has purported to limit the damages thatmayberecoveredin thirdparty actions by asbestos victims. Althoughthe statute herein sets a limitfromthe standpointofthe amount ofmoney aparticular defendant canbe required to pay, ratherthan fromtheperspective ofthe plaintiff, nothing in the constitutional provision would except this lawfromtheprohibition on limiting recovery amounts. The legislature has donejust what the constitutionforbids in article3, 18, and therefore the statute mustbe found unconstitutional on that basis also. JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 11 (2) The Statute Is An Unconstitutional "Special Law" Second, the statute constitutes a "special law" 'which is prohibited by article 3, 32 ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that the test for determining whether a statute is violative ofthe constitutional prohibition of special laws is as follows: Legislation for a class distinguished from a general subject is not special, but general; and classification is a legislative question, subject to judicial revision only so far as to see that it is founded on real distinctions in the subjects classified, and not on artificial or irrelevant ones, used for the purpose of evading the Constitutional prohibition. Ifthe distinctions are genuine, the Courts cannot declare the classification void, though they may not consider it to be on a sound basis. The test is not wisdom, but good faith in the classification. Diifnurv Mai?e. 358 Pa. 309,56 A.2d 675,677(1948), quoting Seabolt v. Commissioners. 187Pa.318,41 A. 22(1898). Therefore,the court's inquiry iswhether the classifications made inthe statute arereal distinctions. Sftg FreeTer Storage. Inc., v. Armstrong Cork Company. 476 Pa. 270,382 A.2d 715,718 (1978). Here, it is manifestly obvious that, taken as a whole, the classifications in the statute are to benefit Crown alone, notthe result ofgenuine distinctions. The first classification inthe statute isbetween corporationsand all otherbusiness entities. The second is between corporations incorporated in Pennsylvania and those incorporated anywhere else. Third, the statute classifies Pennsylvania corporations incorporated before and after May 1,2001. Next, the statute separates domestic corporations incorporated before May 1,2001, on thebasis ofwhetherthey have liability forasbestos- causedpersonal injuries. Finally, itdivides those domestic corporations incorporated before May 1,2001, who have liability for asbestos-causedpersonal injuries, into those whose liability is as a successor and those "whose liabilityisbased on any other legal theory. These classifications areplainly intended solelyto benefitCrown, as JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 12 no other business entity fits within all five ofthe classifications made in the statute. While each ofthe five distinctions may in theory be ofgeneral application, when the five are considered together, no conclusion is possible otherthan that the legislaturehas attempted to evade the constitutional proscription against special laws. This conclusion is buttressed by the legislative history. Senator Waugh, speaking in support ofthe bill, stated that the legislation"... has obviously been here for quite some time in the General Assembly and been identified, as thetwo speakers beforeme so eloquentlypointed out, as the Crown Cork & Seal legislation." 2001 Legislative Journal - Senate 1232 (December 11,2001). One ofthe two speakers referred to by Senator Waugh was SenatorTomlinson, who termed the bill one that"... will help the company CrownCork & Seal..." 2001 Legislative Journal - Senate 1230 (December 11,2001). The statute plainly constitutes special legislation, and therefore, mustbe found unconstitutional as violative ofarticle 3, 32 ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution. See Harrisburg School Dist. V. Hickok. 563 Pa. 391.761 A.2d 1132,1136 (2000) ("...tins court has held that a classificationisperse unconstitutional whenthe class consistsofonemember and it isimpossibleorhighlyunlikely that another canjointhe class."); Allegheny Countyv. Monzo. 509Pa. 26,500 A.2d 1096,1105-1106 (1985). (3) The Statute Was Constitutionally Flawed In The Manner Of Its Enactment Finally, the lawwas passed in violation ofarticle 3, 1 and article3, 3 ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution. The former sectionprovides that: "No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passagethrough eitherHouse, as to change its original purpose " The latterprovision statesthat "No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed initstitle, excepta general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the lawora partthereof." Here, thepurpose ofthe statute at issue was altered substantially afterthe relevantbill was first introduced inthePennsylvania Senate, and the final bill contained more than one subject JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 13 This statute was passed as Senate BillNo. 216. In its original form (Printer's No. 223), the bill's title stated that it would be an act "Amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) ofthe Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, furtherprovidingforlimitations ofactions." Its only substance wasaproposed amendment of42 PaC.S.A. 5524 to set the statute oflimitations for asbestos-caused injuries and deaths attwoyears from the date a plaintiffwas informed by his doctorofhis injury. A copy ofSenate Bill No. 216 (Printer'sNo. 223) is appended hereto as Exhibit "B."5 The original bill was passed unanimously by the Senate on March 14,2001 (a copy ofthe history ofSenate Bill 216, obtained from the Pennsylvania legislative website, is appended hereto as Exhibit "C"). In the House ofRepresentatives, the bill was amended and reprinted underPrinter'sNo. 1576. Acopy ofSenate BillNo. 216 (Printer'sNo. 1576) is appended hereto as Exhibit "D." That amendment changed the language ofthe statute oflimitations section,but also added an extensive section detailing coststo be charged by thejudicial system for certain cases. The newtitle ofthe bill read: "Amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for COSTS, FOR COMMONWEALTHPORTIONOF FINES AND FORlimitations ofactions." This amended version ofthe bill, as yet containing no mention ofthe limitation on successorasbestos-related liabilities,passedthe House of Representatives, with one vote against, on December 5,2001. When the bill was returned to the Senate for concurrence inthe House amendments, die lull was again amended, and given Printer's No. 1617. Forthe firsttime, one ofthe houses addedthe language uponwhich 5 The court can take judicial notice ofthe different versions of Senate Bill 216 in its passage through the legislature. Common Cause/Pennsvlvania v. Commonwealth. 710 A.2d 108,112 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), affirmed. 562 Pa. 632,757 A.2d 367 (2000); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth. 691 A.2d 1023,1026 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), affirmed. 563 Pa. 108,757 A26.917 (2000). JUDGE TERESIIKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 14 Crown seeks dismissal from these lawsuits. In addition, the Senate deleted all ofthe House amendment dealing withjudicial costs, made further changesto the statute oflimitationsprovision, and added a section that amended 42 Pa.C.SA. 8128, dealing with transfers ofclaims against Commonwealth residents, A copy ofSenate Bill No. 216 (Printer's No. 1617) is appended hereto as Exhibit "E." The new title provided: AMENDING TITLES 15 (CORPORATIONS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS) AND 42 (JUDICIARY ANDJUDICIAL PROCEDURE) OF THEPENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES, PROVIDING FOR LIMITATIONS ON ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES RELATING TO CERTAIN MERGERS OR CONSOLIDATIONS'; AND FURTHERPROVIDING FORCERTAIN STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND FOR CERTAIN TRANSFERS. The Senate concurred in the House amendments, as further amended, on December 11,2001, and the House concurred in the new Senate amendments the next day. Upon the bill being signed inboth houses, it was sentto the governor, who approved it on December 17,2001. Thus, this law clearly was altered, so as to change its original purpose, as itjourneyed through the legislature. It began as a bill thatrelated solelyto the statute oflimitations, passed the Senate, and then was substantially altered to providefor certainjudicial costs. Afterthe amendedbill passed the House, forthe first time there appeared language to change substantively the lawofsuccessor liability. Therefore,thepurpose oftbe bill was altered twice, each timeinamannerthat changed its original purpose. In addition, the final bill contained two distinct subjects - the statute oflimitations amendment and the substantive change inthe lawofsuccessor liability. Asaresultjtisclearthatthelawwaspassedin violation ofarticle 3, 1 and3 ofthePennsylvania Constitution. See Common Cause ofPennsylvania v. Commonwealth. 668 A.2d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), affirmed. 544 Pa. 512.677 A2d 1206(1996). Crown's motion for summaiyjudgmentmust be denied on the additional basis that the enactment ofthe law on which its motion is based was constitutionally flawed. JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 15 Wherefore, forthe foregoing reasons, plaintiffsrepresented by Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler respectfully request that the motion for summary judgment of Crown Cork & Seal Company be denied. Respectfully submitted. Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown and Sandler SJC:jwd cc: See attached Counsel List JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 16 COUNSEL LIST Joel D.Caney, Esquire Law Offices of Joel D. Caney 1600 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Michael J. Stack, Jr., Esquire Stack & Stack 1600 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Thomas A. Leonard, Esquire Paul S. Diamond, Esquire Mathieu J. Shapiro, Esquire Obennayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP One Penn Center, 19* Floor 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendant Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. Lawrence R. Cohan, Esquire Anapol Schwartz Weiss Cohan Feldman & Smalley, PC 1710 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert E. Paul, Esquire Paul Reich & Myers, PC 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Benjamin P. Shein, Esquire Shein Law Center 121 South Broad Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Marie G. Strauss, Esquire Early & Strauss 360 Lexington Avenue, 20* Floor New York, NY 10017 George W. Howard, ID, Esquire JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 17 Howard Brenner & Nass, PC 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Edward V. Reeves, Esquire 1520 Lewis Tower Building 225 S. 15th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 1230 LEGISLATIVE journal--senate DECEMBER. 11, M Ad nnnv&as fee * ofAngus: 6, mi (RL*6I, N6323), referred to as the J>oKxsylvarj2 Boerrf ofPrckaaon anil Pnolo Lew, fcrtwpiovk)^fen5mlis^rfacatJvqrKsniaec, Castoaed the second fia and agreed ta. Ordered, To be printed txt fee Calendar for feed consider ation. SB 96 (Pr, No. 1618) (AnuaxScd) (Rsxrponed) (fcawar- tax# An Ansurnamethe ocs ofMydJ'l5*9 (EL.169,14>32),fcao* e< the Storage Tank tad Spin Prevention AO. defrnfag "egvirocrcBatd mafia*; end provido for cmara notiSeafiai Aee fent are ittese* fixia anrsgc taiks. bbxs over in order. SB S3 sad SB 8r -- d'sfcotrf objection, (he U2* -were passed over fa feeir coder at feereqnsst ofScnaiorP3CCOLA. BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION SB 56 (Pfc No. 1574) -- Tike Senateproceeded to ccmsida^ eticn offee biH (arWed! SB 857 fft, Na. Idl9) (AncoddD Otor^anm (Qma> naa$ A Ad aroadiagAc aa ofltt}y $. I5>fi9 (pi.Jfi9,Na32Xlaxrwa as tee Stray Tank <md ftSB feeweatioa Act. &gtecr pnrAfiqg-ha pa^neattfem^tfc^AmibElIbdmattrfStac^cThtarl^ffqjL ncetirai Toed; end ter UbfaErtwid Stensp Tank Bavaotgenai Ctesrcp Bregma. HB 1633{TfcIfau3P3)(Rcrcponad)/Cberan*^^ __ A*Act azwxSag Tide* 18 (Qna and DfoTse) *i <2 (f*Eday taxi jm&oS Procedure) offteJPenieg^iaob Ctteolidated Sm-- - --1---.--^.OjABwIKani' Ajiii7iffll,<ilbnniirii1iM i mccse to vdonssScft; tsd ficrfSer jxtJvi&EfirratewSduse sfcere* _____ --- *-- ti ^MMMnd nhrr iiMtfWt fmrtMU Orce^deTcddje secondtine Bad tgreedto, Ordered. To be printed on fee Cakmdar fix feird consider- 6ob- BILL OVERIN ORDER MAamer&^,itmtathBt2,\9tiff!lJ36,'Ho33X^^am fee Tftate^ CotapesatioDAct rafterdefining 'Viccopeficnad4Sf> ease." sfecxaL order of business SUmEMNDULCAXJCNDARNb.l , ' SENATEtXNOlKS INBOOSEAMENDMENTS asamends* SBM6(P^Np. IQ7)-Ile SenatejPd4 tocoDsite- J3B1333--WSttoot otgeaSe*^ fee HQ-wpassed ever fa J(5 onlgritfteieqpatflfSnMarBOOOU. JtCPOKTSTROM COMMITTEES SmaTTr THOMPSON^ frota fee GranadKee ca ^cyd i inns, reported feefeStjwfagbQ: HBlM(h:!b3^(todtd)0^p<a9 Ab Act xeatint Httes 15 (CotpanaSocc tad Un&W|iundM xtdg gnriiairy )Bihi3iIPteeedg6<fftcErita T^CoigcWed3MMg>pe||d6{faBBii>riwBfli<Ats|iB^ tedM^de3gb6esceiatoaerta<rojflBMeS8iie; aijitehi prorifiaetot cotm aaeoies ontatofioossad ter cemJo tBUfiae. ODfeeqt^stxxv fee Senate eoncarmitegneadniatexaade tyfeeHeims, ssaaEDdedbyfee ScssdMO SauteSBHe.31CI ApAajncadte3hfeg3<Mi<fdrfaiBSfi(tatta^of)lJte- i 3?frBtoQpesawScM^gaito^Munfcapa^^ : ^pcs^ah,yot^c^icat^cr^&33M^^iDpaaan*baae it^patgibtpij^efciyfthildffiBCftafiiies^jbnet; nritgabafac^ odiftfagproricteatn tzxrfteaed&ala&itaBfar j s^rfdie test eliss; making ftpeata; cod jawS&efar finds 5* jjxriSed ks and penalties. Senatw PJCOOLA. MedanBnesBe(<Immedotfee SetMte do cotCTr hi tec gpendwaagmadelytea HteP^ *amended>y fee Senates to SeroetBiD No. 216, . ;j* !! I {*** it" "if*. * Oafeeqacsnoe, WBI fee Souk ngrte to fee suXHrf Senator BRJGHH&X* fiam fee Committee' c* Rales sad EsecativcNcminatJJS,xe?cndd)efeIkrwi!jbSfc SB 2Id (Pn No. J6TJ) CAmevjed) (Rereponed) (Ctxaar- A* Act uncodUj TMes 15 {Crnnondops me Vdbcejpomed Assjcfeiow) end <2 OaSciasy*od Judicial Procedure}of&e Penns}- *T-rT r~--"1*-*--" *--,t-r~T-*riviT tr - II hiedfiaKHBaJcUtmg V etrsiajnHsas or caasn&toSoiis eqdfiw4er TbePRESDING^OFFJGBBL Tie Ctas tecocmaesfeegesAh* man ftotn Buds, Senator Tbsnfinsco. SmHltor^TCML3JC0N. SifedmafteaSiSa^m waadraotfete sins pot vdo Senate BSINo. 21 fefeeComafetee oolttdeswl ExecutiveNteAefeas s m aneodenentfete tnBiej^p fee rompsny Oafm Cede feSed, aa irdmofexal ctummyadfete wwlrfbesaqoaimsiqc^iorirgz&Jp^^xaaSoibnteCM my district. Oro^ Ct^&Str^ is xcaxapanffTlheS crates cans , aad boiries and bottleczps. It lass a OiOQssntl employees mj a f payraBofaImatS47'sdlfioK^p^lo(alt(EsmidStttiaaseC ^ zbootS4 xoSIkm, afldbesidesfeat h does AnaaldlBcB doOacf 2001 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-- SENATE 1331 worth oftmsincss fa the Stott ofFenDsytamja \fSfe otherPeso* syfoanfa companies- So, financial japan m Bus Sale 3s vtf& vtay impomat, and ax b tone when we arc Joefag mors end mere jobs Bad et a rime wbco we are Jesmg pood, faznz]y*mxattiiij jobs, and at a time when we art losing njawfaeturingjobs, ibis companyfa critically important ibe fineiicwJ weHarc ofnu^ bus# fanri&fi inaydistrict Butsotnrfbfaghas happened to than, Titty barebeen urfor siege ty fitjgasts and lawyers from Ifans and lyfissfes^jn, and ibey are ncnrpayfagls tin tune ofabout $190imDfaa a year in Senator STACK. MadamPiesMcnt. I abo nc in siqjpattof Senate Bill No. 216,1 rise todjy w rfisetep iEgbbtaoa that V*ia have aa import** fapaa on Feonq^rsaw public potfcy. B a basic {ownatente] imenestto sor oarcotpo' XrXm7B im>>ow--W----n--* At% rwrf v--w"^vhAvi >* * * ----* * nrin soh^fbecause cfa merger. hBsowevicfaitdEtiasan'BflfiseneacaiseguepceofioBB* as tfaff fa^peoed fa ifa past, PteaiylvaBfa cqntfaa*ttaB server ibaieitjwsproduced, scd4 or installed ichcstwtprodocta Zn&VbeeeChE EdmntnsOlnMt*J C.V.'l!t.'.. --e--i-- ** Cnrm CedeA Sal. . JJo4 the thii^ find igjri=vfs xae zbonr that is tfm Crown Code & Scd dew not and new Ins eoA> asbestos oevsed . bestos hi itt products. It d&t however, fa 1563 acquire a fertile tap ctmipmy tbai had aa afoisttg davkioa, bm w^bio SO deyr sold Offdot division usd relieved itstjfcfibai busfaest Because ofthat and an investment of bbou t6 jt&Boa, fitsy now have paid onakpost 5300 xoSBfae in claimsisTcos abdli&Ssrippt Hfk__ __ jt___ -* -- - *- A>- ------------------>?- --------------- J .% - feansmjnccokiCedmdesdiccfzsbesmiicfaxEdciaiiasfflaiJe in Ac United Statestoday. Whathmbees descDbedhytbeVjS. Skposioe Court as an cfcjihaiji&ie mess darttibt com hascaBed oat farJe*isJaxive seta&as. 1b nSew oTdds Ksicffica% mptesw- Ap^frJi inh&taZ*** * va -- I * ' ** -1* --- "*"* ----- - -** * - ter ofpobJcpe&g'dastOM: mDoo ofassets wjulaUejojajWv fe bond warns is nowjrrnk-t brads. ji k having difScuhy hoCTOnx^ aopc^ and tha* has impacted cm the coayaay verf, vay ^xytJt^.l&3xikilkbJ^anu^l1ts^.^)^et!y1a`p^tizx^'PBx^sylnc^Sl^^^Ttms^mmemlp^3^a3^oai<^S^ta^e 4cpjwtooioa, sak, orfasaftHfea ofashesm. Wax 6 an ho& dow ao isnsSOt ba* offinnest. Tfac fa the goal of6s kgsboao, to uHcituane xaeasm offtfcrrs* Stigaots wbeo tbrjrdo mt even hove aahcstcMs. Kot oat of Wfavemaay ofyoa at fanntfar nzfa ibe ndblessfint Don ejainaner has beta Sound to be sick have a&esSoefa aod fee nu-___ .4____ .rTT. . ^ Byay does not raite asbestos, {fa^wjaawthave too hereft .y tried fe? &nif the tiibxBty ofibe tuuipujy to theamooacxbatit paid jRrt&e subsidyfifflfefecmgttin U^aodd^isabanSfi mflSc*L * Madam Resident ft does not make any sense to me to have aDSO^eroKddHtg^faMfasfasj^'t&odoes&otlffMas&eseo- tlt get an vwrod ofS35 asHEon fins a. company that did not Hi***-, asbestos. Yet, I have retired couple fa n^y tEsrict who WtatadaS their Kfc> raised faadfcfbeyltfME mw naired, rfcy havr done evoyfiring right ibiy hzve saved theiriaooe% aod new tt*y are looting at losing *eirpension, and flay certainly have footed alftesiodcftcybeugfa from a eampaay fatt &ey putllm fasuefampesjxsth*. C^ownCo^:BSei^a*diaiVanqrlvaufaoOBnpaydtttan ploys ljMO Pexas^vasfa itsadeafaandenantaDoesdate SI h^BoaiotbcStz&oeoiioiJi^fateeteriqgaiiBefccfafasfbnfa- nyRy.fak fathfepstsficsiijcni, fa hegtpan, becauseafmi a.. -v__ *- _ - - - *" doflare fa sfa&as, Crown Cod:dt Seal flatsIheseUwiaSBMd tfa* d&e financfal sfaotfab despitt factdbe tODOpaaf*cb jaasn&cbmd, sold, or fasssSed a tfagfa ashcstos<antafaiag W*<^rt*>W^ka**ra i i a 1 -------- 3 """ a-v - - -- wibifiraliAca^gsfitttStSvSiiOed&ednBto abodSlJOtilst ,It mates no sense me dalI iapeople who are55 years of age wn&fag fa BcmaleaJ, FHteddfcfefa 'WUkrs-Baoei* Comidttsvilfci watting rad givfaga fatofAaz Kfe t ftfe com* paywho arenownot arethey are going jdfcaweajcfawfteos SS-ycar-oM litigant fa Mwajai gets a J2S naffico avranL DPbst'We are doing tatHfcx^inccey fitwjdeocpaQrfiat The cir^De offids problem Ugm MaedOyeasagp wbei ^iiir 11 r*i V it ", at i 'i i Mifirrm r ifluitflri i|i~ iiii1Tin'i~rBjf aod ftd cantafam, vwts swiingto eapnd its oparadon. Ac part offlat effim, kacqmrcd astodtfcamaim hfaAdetCade Cfaagttiy,aBcnw6anrarafcod:4iaedtqBfcc^cAdawat coda; Had we first inveoied In the 1*0Q bjrOowa CotfcA Scal^ founder A small divisim efMmfat>pacrto giyOpwa nuies boilfcs and cans to pcapU in. Mississippisad Texas trfjo do acthave ashestnss. yctXhsvewintesvAoatwodijgfar a eeogiaDy Tt*o ato vwaried abofa thtjrjt>bsf'wljo are waned atomtheir fimses, nio atevoofai afcottt then zdJnenpcras, and tAo me woofad aborttidrpeaBwios. So^ Madam Pjesiden^ I adc that we adoptSense BIB No. 216 nSA the esKadmeot fiat SetatofContiunt fato i fa. d>e Catandt tee nafades and Ewadve'lfarcgiiarinoa^andlask farfasMea- erode Snrwest in Mnodet, jwl 2 yews hdsrd* ratnriodcr tt MtrodetwasamgedfaioOwaL ' Kaw Crownh very cxfettscg is ftaezlcjed, thereszdtcfaa. bejS* snppoapa &is issue. Jhe PRES3D1NG OF53CER. The Cfcearrscogniacs Iho gentifcASS frffip PiuJadelpWei, Senator Sadt ccgnpiimcsazQ^C^ASeA^tevgtnrS^^A____ Afr nwrf rnl. a?ii *"* - - ____ .*____ *>* ._ its lbi%jnbjieds^^be^oF^me^lawtofte total 1232 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-- SENATE DECEMBER 11, value assets of congHny 1jEu was actually fit the asbestos bosaea. Afid inan independent aedko, fee amend- menrJpbees the asset* ofa PemsyJvaoia cccppianoe flat exceed that tocaZ value beyood fee reach ofctelmnts. The srasnidnxa* K f^mfgiDv g windfall bn ektngmK, * ium&H feat ja destroying gnaopent cgtporaSions and innocta woding pccplctjobs. Hie amendment to TSfle 35 feat will become Was part of Sensift B!S Kb. 2l is stfestaawdyfee same cs&e cmeadisaa to section 71tK ofTitle42 is Senate BiUNo. BIS, withievfe;mf ScoaicrWAtXjB.M3daiaPresident, rfalegts^^ today, Secaw BiB No. 236, i$ legj^afem fear I suppen. I tm* teday to jtst pAc a few rourmmt?: fee fee ircnrd oo fee pnaposaLniiasotmciisly-beeDiKStfir^nltsacaDe'fiDsefeilieOaa' enJ Assembly2mdban Bonified *b fee two qwdcavbefiaeitf so etoquanflypainted cfl^aa fee Crown Cede it Seal VjrflntKM, X -wnold Hoe toi first of all, jnst say torfee raced, aafac ao adstaks, Ihls legjsfatkm does aSset tone 150 to 200jot* 4<r lc^sbtfve districtfearl n^prescoLfeHaOVe^feac fe B OlMB Code & Seal plant Bul-would UJsetojtBt^tofecMombca* to certain tenns ccBjfefiB wife fee ttefmmofcs isTide 15. Now& 3 Jooow many of ajy coOragnes arc concerned abcot - - -* - t___ l _ _ ___ ,___t briefityfeat 1he is reallynote to tWs kpdMfcm feaojo& fee jdhs feat we love beard about Befereyen stake yonr deecuq, please conddcrfee subject, and feat snl^cct b edbestas EtJeaSwu Us^es the bstoiy gad fitfage ofasbestro-icbaed pggatioii fa fee beard* cost ofcornpenSEtlng fndrriAsals exposed W asbestc* sod Bufioiqg health ptoWans. Qwbi Co* & Seal k not one of those conzpenfa. Beyond fat fax, fee** etc topically dans, if not hundred*, fifcompanies named re asbestos bwaAs.Doapt Unitod States, asbestos claims have been 0&tg on firmer* \Ai*am "TWvf nf ^TrUt-- --- filed eadi year by a. relatively snaaH Btanbar a(mtpcdtiSzBi^ 9e, Wqwjtei lawfirms. It las bea* ndd flat fee adtestos tte* t3*, csfeqt tit called, file ctetagnrias tdtojpaagiproad^ kx amyosK fed ;yee tysay^ fed fecse peepk ik* 1>e ccn> niismefeodofiagfe^cWnimtsfethatlhyEegwBrypoedbfe jpcraard.IfefeKfiis dearfaywifeMere ia^a^y,fetyw31 naoufectBra ofasbesaos pitdoas cr paroct enporafiante be ccopessaied by fee companies feat actually bear wneio- nay hsw beat fee cause afltnm to Ae]r<a*s. AUtec* cotat ijxnsS^Qc. ' I baVe also beard argameMfS against fte baj tfczi ssy fe wjH only applyto Pamqdvania ciamaca. Thai is pl*m Wrong. Uric biH w-fll zppfy to od-of-Statc darenne in cut-afiStare courts. I Y^ in xbe case rfCrowpCcefcA Seal, clainisagsiritttanndrf j odsEslqSy(rllieig93xiyisiea^CTag>ecitoaesfe4ie]n' smt, fee InrjKtf sanpiy go after the deepest paefats to n&& featjodgmtg. fT rrlTir jTirr_ll)r ffirfilrfruilmirpiiTu ifiu 11 nla|iuii^ toaAestos mmnfecttoiog end instaBilieo bas Rally leenslnfe* will confese to be filed io wK^Sbtt touttr, aid aA coun wiH ase hs ttma Stale E*b>E{y lawto detonmne fee impact tfutf Mmdefc productsbid m daimaas. However^ each ovt~o$ate b>S. Carpeeafinas named as defendaabiafeeac smts have beat fining into bwknq^^aJlefeanldyi 'm>eaaoeeffeeU|g9B fens; feeir pockets a fimnyts^yi feeasbestos attorneys fecM court wifi tone to lootto PeoagdwB* corponfc lawto doer, sfeie te exteot \fe3fe Ctom, as * successor lysaeija; & n*` sp*s2defir>6aettEAjSgt . Pennsyh^pulfepaPcysbotMM iaacos &s Crown Code fe Scad fiat ttg^jaainqger do not Wt-ith* rile ndijert ofgnfife. XgfftlfeifanMe, and nQprraVnwt soJej|y asaKsaftfiffee xDoecx: 7tfclEsefetiandfnTrftofiwrairTrisfeftii^trr!fB^ CzcircShrts co fee next biggest,and Iben feesex^ Bod feesdte j*xl RigiB at wronft ttet feJost feeway d* pn in i Wrtgalfrirt Rfcrw tOg*, 7* aafimal MwjtJwWAb. dated cr been involved ia bznbaplEgf Imw of ssbcu tos-iEfafcsd cMdk. Amtmg feost enpoaitioasfeatbM feOeaia ^gt fee pasiyag aloBc, Omxa Cptmcc fetomrional, Grace Onpi$ Babcock and \93oax Ctmtfmy, Amstremu torrid Industries, aadGrUolda^gs. Allcffeese cnpaitMi and itagtca.S)pedBs^fefcltgfefrpna statesfiatfee item toogg baelaapKy ptoteedep Xiecaear ofBabffidei fim shall not applyto iaawn** erenpoits^ wrufcosf corepaasa&a clara^fer tsbessos-cwifenngproducts-fe*tbqr*te5)pedn<Bts benefits, collective bargaining s^eaao*^ pr obEgadotrs srxdbg aider the Hntwoal Labor RctorSorff Act These jnmctfaM,, as tvd as a tSpaSBaotmanber offtanylvaniajob* fine bin wffl decades ago. Tiefeet is, nunafean4(\000afecsiuMvbtod com are filed cacljjtai; 4VJD00 aa&estoel^ed oss toe kdadi year. Even acre starffi^ 1^508 umyanice lavetea tonlate san, arewty many faibermicas are backing fels fcgjsiaticiL ashBafn<Ht^BTioimnfifcEuenfeoqghajbesaaslBb^!ea^d The IcTfrajKoeul Assoeiatko of Machnrirfs od Aeraqpace wiee fee nd-2970s, insurance eapens befieve feat cbdjBV adt Whfaxs, fee Teamans, sad fee Seafarers Intenizlkiail Union, zstveB as ether localPexnsjivasna HiJoo^ arc^supportingthis hflL ft knot nfitofeat PoBS/ivaijIafr fettSTncssrggrrriTFTifeyBTvt cocfegaatp be fled bdQ fie year2050. Bytbqfeetabfar aafeo totHetaed dskos is ctpectedrolni S200 bCEaefecampeneafea labor nairas join together m si^pon ofaa feree saA * its*. TO>refeeydaIfed^itgaBtxirtantotoWM^H> Tudaat we harrefee op^onanlym mao; toBav~, TocaC in lares ofBeoa^rlvaaia prfjficpoHcy. By vofe^ ^csl" yen ea ennae fea a jaaJorPcnijq^vatii* company Hx cb Jcnr to fee budget effee CcjmnQBmailb ofPqmcyhsniafor ft) feSyeact _ * Arecgafan^ycondocredlyfefejtondOwxHaatfaA Initiate for CfvBABncepreifictsfeatan offecTgTwHng asbestos ntann* fcetorcts will to driven boo bmkxnpts^ vrtibJn fie aoS2 ytctx Code* Sed fatresied eqmmMjr,and featjt*s wOIle mattaei fartmftxasybfZ&atkzB&^&ssa^ Tfiank yao, Madam Bresideat. akatCLlbesa^y goo cmtojnriBctfeat efeenthe uJiHpttuJafere attaaHy eansed fee tom ail gonsdec asbestos askxreytSn claims agninst a whole new Kst cftsrgets, nyfafeni; oil ycflminE Tbc PRESIDING OFTICER.Tie OaarrcoQgtdtesiiie gt-ntw. 1msinesscgtjrfaacg,enaanol>3ewiwiifecniw3SiBddtefettcre xasn Yock, 5esa*rTMtt^L ofTtttomoHlcs. KaailezaaDUfecfanas, and otherbtefee^sgs.'busi- 2001 JLECISLATIVE JOURNAL--SENATE 1233 diatbad Ettle or cbedotdyno rtbrirmship to esbesto* Serawt JiHOAlES.MadamiRrcsideffl; n fins snsudaxoi fiSect findaacosfficosfe or aiiy^blsdt Inag daimsS I tsfc tbe Members <jfthis bodyto lookto fhdr own seoslorid Senator TGML3NSON- MadamPtesdaoi. ho, itwin noLla rEsiriets. Think shots it Cmisider'whetheryon have a company, fed, as Sroanr Tfengb and Spefcor Stodrhaw: salod, M wjB oat a imnnrf&duMs; a retaikr, a refinery Thai ccDld be named as a afitct those even -wifii asbesttafe cfeine. so it mil sot aSect defendant in sa nsbesiofc-sthrted cla&n soncrime in the nrar ja- blackhare. lurc- According the Rani Corporation sicdy, every Senate SoiatOTK^ACES.MadCT^rt^dart, bisectsnoprtiaa, Member Ekciy Sets, and m Jtey ease, as I pointed out emSo; no -future bbcfc lung cbanisT there are sore rbao 250 employees of the Crown Corir A Seal Sesame^TOMUWSON. Kb^ MadamErcsideofc Company ia York Ccmrty- J am desp^y concerned about those SenatorKHOAC&S. bfcdam Fwadetfl, andft fe not inended vrdjtere> and I am coaocmad about & fifasts for tbrir families, ljB8taoiiirac**IScas or black tong tfsms3 ` I have received fl number ofjetteni, phone calls, and taxes from Seaa^TOMLlN5Qfl Madam fresaiait, that them cmy fee last srranl wefo.j mmMlBs topvtyro coc intendedtofcatdaL isjjot ecasnpte. This one constitoajt wrote to me with Ms perspective. Senator RHOADES. Ttiaiiy^ MadamPresident HSssesthnsrts were echoed time sadtime ajjrinm fee messages I iu^Kd. Bere is-Wtss be occ `Tbe coi^jsq'I-k for was ki die wrong place 3t tbe wroeg time. They art getting POINTOF ORDER. haawnened 40 years afar dyvacpcawy wgeghy efreesfa^ toB-j*odciig rxtnjnay, ftoogti flieynever evrproduced nabesvoa, endsxfk we arc berogposhed to ikebrinkofUnsocial nimbylawsuits," imqi*irg.Thcy tTM- i^yt.T^r* fir the firont dm inay well ofle on *cpasKe ofrJifebiZL MatenoinjSk&c> MadamResMefcJ sqsport SenateSjBN& Tt> TTr'fMirr rTnrrtT Thrrtllti miljjiMTrntli ^1 idle eras &>aF)Bladel|j^ SeguesSoadfc. . Setmm$lAQiLMadampRsidea^XRscioad:deCIudrftr a ixEr^imdaSeDalclthleXXlsexA2. As pantMS'is a tmr ^OiXti^d^aamCedi:^Seii,bigffnptiateeirm tovottCtttfeMlardbmddlaecaaciqyselg 216 Ha thejtibs, the consiitDBasftatl lavejust alluded to, hut Q any fegjsJstfca, in sqtbook at loot, flat ure pass hoc rcafly bas tohe fimdBBestslly fib; wdlba wasmentioned raSerlySon- tar Skadt 5etuBs B3I No. 216 h fas. I datS* Asa fee* is vjycat whp -would stand op ttaaSanaae floor techy and ague da* pup, soos: - -- - idbBdteadiesw^BdtdblimshtaddMtbeCTqienHiTedfaritwfr injury. There is *> ooe in this Senate who would say compensatkm is net dae ifvoa haveticttvpe ofaainjmy rVrTainlyrtyy should receive cawpensaSaa. Huey have been hannaf, they should he allowed *> go afisr fcc companies that JBara&cOTetl The PRESIDING 0FFX3SL Ibe Sesucr Ins nqneand s jufing fiam the G5rasto vibetberbeisieqmiedtovoe os As motion. He tSns brs mentedb^r iia tarfim dut involved b the mcorc. Tbe rales nxparc thef* Member iMfvotkig hove* ^^^ymnbryintt^mtbetmMurtcflbfeiBatterbrtMffdfe bodjL'We fiudftatta as attorney, Samar Stock is atnodberof Bcfessandbas^atbest.irajq'ffletarrs^aniaErertpeaimiiyinwsa; and !i k ts rdBog, offee Oalrttai yon are tequsedto vetemtesAA SerudorSXACE^ThMskytw,Madam Prtasidcat and instiled asbestos prodbeBacrfbepeonikted to exttacia fib; a fiframount ofsarqpensa&on firlhebandonedma. Madam JPnsJdeai; tfias is cadty-*te&tic fegphtiaiibcfire Ay>*r jpMxrirft IM PT'm, wan As Senate agree to fmnxxicttf Hs today Ax=-h doesnedangto stop a pcssca Eiri^jiagfctmtgj nsbcsiztf-rcbttdsgtay tram the cneswfoaeeje^xst- Sblo for caoSsgtbe huxo. Hal teg&iacSoa & < tbe isSX ofpotential wpossible defirndairts jb these Irosabs us^jf 71m yea todsatya SKfi)DoiK;'*ic numbedly Sesator ncCXBLA atad YEA-44 iadaifcsdie ones j&atfere actually<S*e bam.Ih&y &t of I fkflmJsnaincbdesaconi^tbaishcadq^Brtejed&jPraaffyJvania, wish empkarees inysaatodal detriethisacoti^any flatBeffnieMerinjiaCinuPtdcraMidfedatt.arfiecicw|fcTvtwffr; . aB *e jasofits qwsli Tod^i is Crw Ctai & Sad. If J the Rand Ccnpatzlioa soidyisio bete&eve^ inlte nct-too-ds^ twd fitare ibi hit list ofnamed &odts and ashestee^clated claims pos^^aieiidea CBe^snaya> 6>e aenatotal d&faiet tfiatytaiijireaa^wa&en^lcyHsft*^ 1 Bentx B^aaa Codl C&oflb Cctra Sne*ai\tm*i . Fa OatKh Gcerietf XllfiW b ii&Mm icmft thto KnlmriA laVdb JjC3HOC4 leen <MWtM0M h2m OMe Heedft Pat Ebeato SCMMi SdnnaE *-IEckqUmb W-fh 'WU^ConM Jtm^yt^gopp^offele^abtior^evgnrrg Th^Vy^tt. Madam ftcsHta^fcrThefiae. NAY-5 lhcgRE6itjUJG OiH-lCER. IheCbaiMecoan^ fee pen^- 9 man &OT Sdiayim Senocr Rhtadta. Senator XHQADES. Madam Prrsideia, t*jfl Senator | Tma&soasibndt*o kdea^Am. SemstorTOMLINSON. Yes, Madam President. tMl One 'EW^Cuul W2&BXBG, CtcSKtc A CDtatitotioiial majority,ofaH fix: Senators having voted fire ^est^^as^fcKwniDediatbe affiJ7naSe. * Ordered, TWfcSeotanycfttgSesaoeieftaa the Hoota of Sepreseosanvcs aeeaadio^tjt. EXHIBIT I0 223PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 216 "of INTRODUCED BY TARTAGLIONE, BELL, WAGNER, MELLOW, STOUT, MUSTO, O'FAKE, SCHWARTZ, LAVALLE, HUGHES, COSTA, KASUNIC, BODACK, BOSCOLA, KUKOVICH AND STACK, JANUARY 31, 2001 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, JANUARY 31, 2001 AN ACT 1 Amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the 2 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for 3 limitations of actions. 4 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 5 hereby enacts as follows: 6 Section 1. Section 5524 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania 7 Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a paragraph to read: 8 5524-7 Two year limitation. 9 The following actions and proceedings must be commenced 10 within two years: 11 * * * 12 (8) An action to recover damages for injury to a person 13 or for the death of a person caused by the exposure to 14 asbestos shall be commenced within two years from the date 15 the person was informed by a licensed physician that the 16 person has an injury which is caused by such exposure. 17 Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days. L14L42RLE/20010S0216B0223 Senate Bill 216 History Page 1 ofl SB 216 By Senators TARTAGLIONE, BELL, WAGNER, MELLOW, STOUT, MUSTO, O'PARE, SCHWARTZ, LAVALLE, HUGHES, COSTA, KASUNIC, BODACK, BOSCOLA, KUKOVICH and STACK. Prior Printer's Nob. 223, 1576. Printer's No. 1617. An Act amending Titles 15 {Corporations and Unincorporated Associations) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for limitations on asbestos-related liabilities relating to certain mergers or consolidations; and further providing for certain statutes of limitations and for certain transfers. Referred to JUDICIARY, Jan. 31, 2001 Reported as committed, Feb. 13, 2001 First consideration, Feb. 13, 2001 Second consideration, March 12, 2001 Third consideration and final passage, March 14, 2001 (46-0) In the House Referred to JUDICIARY, March 15, 2001 Reported as committed, June 19, 2001 First consideration, June 19, 2001 Laid on the table, June 19, 2001 Removed from table, Oct. 3, 2001 Second consideration, Oct. 3, 2001 Re-referred to APPROPRIATIONS, Oct. 3, 2001 Re-reported as committed, Nov. 19, 2001 Re-referred to JUDICIARY, Nov. 21, 2001 Re-reported as amended, Dec. 4, 2001 Third consideration and final passage, Dec. 5, 2001 (192-1) (Remarks see House Journal), Dec. 5, 2001 In the Senate Referred to RULES AND EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS, Dec. 5, 2001 Re-reported on concurrence, as amended, Dec. 11, 2001 Senate concurred in House amendments, as amended by the Senate, Dec. 11, 2001 (44-5) (Remarks see Senate Journal), Dec. ll, 2001 In the House Referred to RULES, Dec. 12, 2001 Re-reported on concurrence, as committed, Dec. 12, 2001 House concurred in Senate amendments to House amendments, Dec. 12, (168-30) Signed in Senate, Dec. 12, 2001 Signed in House, Dec. 12, 2001 In hands of the Governor, Dec. 12, 2001 Last day for action, Dec. 22, 2001 Approved by the Governor, Dec. 17, 2001 Act No. 101 2001 rv, ,w/an toi n T/t3Tmxinnm /n/cunoi < xttkjt m /i-i/o/wj _JBCHiBrrj HOUSE AMENDED PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 223 PRINTER'S NO. 1576 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA "ofSENATE BILL No. 216 INTRODUCED BY TARTAGLIONE, BELL, WAGNER, MELLOW, STOUT, MUSTO, O'PARE, SCHWARTZ, LAVALLE, HUGHES, COSTA, KASUNIC, BODACK, BOSCOLA, KUKOVICH AND STACK, JANUARY 31, 2001 _____ AS RE-REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS AMENDED, DECEMBER 4, 2001 AN ACT 1 Amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the 2 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for 3 COSTS, FOR COMMONWEALTH PORTION OF FINES AND FOR limitations 4 of actions. <-- 5 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 6 hereby enacts as follows: 7 Section 1---Section- 552 4 of--Title 42 of- t-he-Ponnoy-lvania <-- 8 Coneol-idated-St-etut-eo--io amended-by- adding -cfr-parngaraph" to read-: 9 SECTION 1. SECTIONS 1725.1 AND 3571(C) OF TITLE 42 OF THE <-- 10 PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES ARE AMENDED TO READ: 11 1725.1. COSTS. 12 (A) CIVIL CASES.--SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (F) , THE COSTS TO BE 13 CHARGED BY DISTRICT JUSTICES IN EVERY CIVIL CASE, EXCEPT AS 14 OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 15 (1) ACTIONS INVOLVING $500 OR 16 LESS.......................................................................................................................... $30.00 17 (2) ACTIONS INVOLVING MORE THAN 1 $500 BUT NOT MORE THAN $2,000........................................................... $40.00 2 (3) ACTIONS INVOLVING MORE THAN 3 $2,000 BUT NOT MORE THAN $4,000....................................................... $50.00 4 (4) ACTIONS INVOLVING MORE THAN 5 $4,000 BUT NOT MORE THAN $8,000....................................................... $75.00 6 (5) LANDLORD-TENANT ACTIONSINVOLVING 7 LESS THAN $2,000........................................................................................... $45.00 8 (6) LANDLORD-TENANT ACTIONS INVOLVING MORE 9 THAN $2,000 BUT NOT MORE THAN $4,000.......................................... $55.00 10 (7) LANDLORD-TENANT ACTIONS INVOLVING MORE 11 THAN $4,000 BUT NOT MORE THAN $8,000.......................................... $75.00 12 (8) ORDER OF EXECUTION................................................................. $22.50 13 (9) OBJECTION TO LEVY................................................................... $10.00 14 (10) REINSTATEMENT OF COMPLAINT......................................... $ 5.00 15 SUCH COSTS SHALL INCLUDE ALL CHARGES EXCEPT THE COSTS OF A 16 DISTRICT JUSTICE'S TRANSCRIPT OF EVERY PROCEEDING ON APPEAL OR 17 CERTIORARI (INCLUDING AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATE) WHICH SHALL BE 18 $2.50 PER TRANSCRIPT. SAID COSTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE, HOWEVER, THE 19 COST OF POSTAGE AND REGISTERED MAIL WHICH SHALL BE BORNE BY THE 20 PLAINTIFF. 21 (A.l) CUSTODY CASES.--EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22 1725(C) (2) (V) (RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES) 23 AND SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (F) , IN A CUSTODY CASE, THE COURT OF 24 COMMON PLEAS SHALL, IN ADDITION TO THE COST PROVIDED BY GENERAL 25 RULE, ASSESS A COST OF $5.00. EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE FUNDS 26 GENERATED BY THE CHARGE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE 27 TRANSMITTED BY THE PROTHONOTARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO 28 PAY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 1904 (RELATING TO 29 AVAILABILITY OF CRIMINAL CHARGE INFORMATION IN CHILD CUSTODY 30 PROCEEDINGS). 20010S0216B1576 2 1 (B) CRIMINAL CASES.--SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (F) , THE COSTS TO 2 BE CHARGED BY THE MINOR JUDICIARY OR BY THE COURT OF COMMON 3 PLEAS WHERE APPROPRIATE IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE, EXCEPT AS 4 OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 5 (1) SUMMARY CONVICTION, EXCEPT MOTOR VEHICLE 6 CASES........................................................................................................................ $28.50 7 (2) SUMMARY CONVICTION, MOTOR VEHICLES CASES, 8 OTHER THAN PARAGRAPH (3).............................................. $22.50 9 (3) SUMMARY CONVICTION, MOTOR VEHICLE CASES, 10 HEARING DEMANDED............................................................................................ $27.50 11 (4) MISDEMEANOR................................................................................... $32.50 12 (5) FELONY................................................................................................ $37.50 13 SUCH COSTS SHALL INCLUDE ALL CHARGES INCLUDING THE COSTS OF 14 GIVING A DISTRICT JUSTICE'S TRANSCRIPT TO THE PROSECUTOR OR 15 DEFENDANT, OR BOTH, IF REQUESTED. SUCH COSTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE, 16 HOWEVER, THE COST OF POSTAGE AND REGISTERED MAIL WHICH SHALL BE 17 PAID BY THE DEFENDANT UPON CONVICTION. 18 (C) UNCLASSIFIED COSTS OR CHARGES.--SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION 19 (F) , THE' COSTS TO BE CHARGED BY THE MINOR JUDICIARY IN THE 20 FOLLOWING INSTANCES NOT READILY CLASSIFIABLE SHALL BE AS 21 FOLLOWS; 22 (1) ENTERING TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGMENT FROM ANOTHER 23 MEMBER OF THE MINOR JUDICIARY............................................................. $ 5.00 24 (2) MARRYING EACH COUPLE, MAKING RECORD THEREOF, 25 AND CERTIFICATE TO THE PARTIES......................................................... $25.00 26 (3) GRANTING EMERGENCY RELIEF PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S. 27 CH. 61 (RELATING TO PROTECTION FROM ABUSE)............................ $10.00 28 (4) ISSUING A SEARCH WARRANT (EXCEPT AS PROVIDED 29 IN SUBSECTION (D))........................................................................................ $10.00 30 (5) ANY OTHER ISSUANCE NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR 20010S0216B1576 3 1 IN THIS SUBSECTION...................................................................................... $10.00 2 (D) SEARCH WARRANTSIN EVERY CASE WHERE A SEARCH WARRANT 3 IS REQUESTED BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONSTABLE OR OTHER PEACE 4 OFFICER ENGAGED AS SUCH IN THE EMPLOY OR SERVICE OF THE 5 COMMONWEALTH OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, NO COST OR 6 CHARGE SHALL BE ASSESSED AGAINST SUCH OFFICER, THE COMMONWEALTH 7 OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH SEARCH 8 WARRANT. 9 (E) FISH AND BOATING OFFENSES.-.- 10 (1) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2), ANY PERSON 11 CONVICTED OF A SUMMARY OFFENSE UNDER TITLE 30 {RELATING TO 12 FISH) SHALL, IN ADDITION TO THE FINE IMPOSED, BE SENTENCED TO 13 PAY $10 AS COSTS OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY WHICH COSTS SHALL 14 INCLUDE ALL CHARGES INCLUDING, WHEN CALLED FOR, THE COSTS OF 15 POSTAGE AND REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL AND THE COSTS OF 16 GIVING A TRANSCRIPT TO THE PROSECUTOR OR DEFENDANT, OR BOTH, 17 IF REQUESTED. 18 (2) WHERE THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A SUMMARY OFFENSE 19 UNDER TITLE 30 DEMANDS A HEARING, THE COSTS OF THE ISSUING 20 AUTHORITY SHALL BE $15, WHICH COSTS SHALL INCLUDE ALL CHARGES 21 INCLUDING THE CHARGES SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH (1) . 22 (F) ANNUAL INCREASE IN COSTS.--BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 1994, 23 AND EACH JANUARY 1 THEREAFTER, THE COSTS UNDER SUBSECTIONS (A) , 24 (B) AND (C) SHALL BE INCREASED BY THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN 25 THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WORKERS FOR THE IMMEDIATE 26 PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR WHICH SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE 27 PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN ANNUALLY BY THE SUPREME COURT ON OR BEFORE 28 THE PRECEDING NOVEMBER 30. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL EXPIRE JANUARY 29 1, [2001] 2010. 30 3571. COMMONWEALTH PORTION OF FINES, ETC. 2G010S0216B1576 4 2, * * * 2 <C) COSTS IN DISTRICT JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS- 3 (1) COSTS COLLECTED BY A DISTRICT JUSTICE SHALL BE 4 TRANSMITTED MONTHLY TO THE COMMONWEALTH IN AMOUNTS AS 5 PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (B) AND THE BALANCE SHALL BE 6 TRANSMITTED MONTHLY TO THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE MAGISTERIAL 7 DISTRICT IS LOCATED. COSTS TRANSMITTED TO THE COMMONWEALTH 8 SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE GENERAL FUND. COSTS TRANSMITTED TO 9 THE COUNTY SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE COUNTY FOR ITS USE. 10 (2) AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH: 11 (I) SUMMARY CONVICTION, EXCEPT MOTOR VEHICLE 12 CASES......................................................................................................... $10.00 13 (II) SUMMARY CONVICTION, MOTOR VEHICLE CASES OTHER 14 THAN SUBPARAGRAPH(III)............................................................... $10.00 15 (III) SUMMARY CONVICTION, MOTOR VEHICLE CASES, 16 HEARING DEMANDED........................................................................... $10.00 17 (IV) MISDEMEANOR................................................................ $13.00 18 (V) FELONY............................................................................... $20.00 19 7 (VI) ASSUMPSIT ORTRESPASS INVOLVING: 20 (A) $500 OR LESS.................................................... $12.50 21 (B) MORE THAN $500 BUT NOT MORE THAN 22 $2,000............................................................................................ $20-00 23 (C) MORE THAN $2,000 BUT NOT MORE 24 THAN $4,000................................................................................ $30.00 25 (D) MORE THAN $4,000 BUT NOT MORE 26 THAN $8,000................................................................................ $50.00 27 (VII) LANDLORD-TENANT PROCEEDING INVOLVING: 28 (A) $2,000 OR LESS................................................. $20.00 29 (B) MORE THAN $2,000 BUT NOT MORE THAN 30 $4,000............................................................................................. $25.00 20010S0216B1576 5 1 (C) MORE THAN $4,000 BUT NOT MORE THAN 2 $8,000............................................................................................ $35.00 3 (VIII) OBJECTION TO LEVY............................................ $ 5.00 4 (IX) ORDER OF EXECUTION................... $15.00 5 (X) ISSUING A SEARCH WARRANT (EXCEPT AS PROVIDED 6 IN SECTION 1725.1(D) (RELATING TO COSTS))..............$ 7.00 7 (XI) ORDER OF POSSESSION............................................. $15.00 8 (3) IN ALL CASES WHERE COSTS ARE BORNE BY THE COUNTY 9 PURSUANT TO SECTION 1725.2 (RELATING TO ASSUMPTION OF SUMMARY 10 CONVICTION COSTS BY COUNTY) , NO SHARE OF SUCH COSTS SHALL BE 11 PAYABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH. 12 (4) BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 1994, AND EACH JANUARY 1 13 THEREAFTER, THE COSTS UNDER PARAGRAPH (2) SHALL BE INCREASED 14 BY THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR 15 URBAN WORKERS FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR WHICH 16 SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN ANNUALLY BY 17 THE SUPREME COURT ON OR BEFORE THE PRECEDING NOVEMBER 30. 18 THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL EXPIRE JANUARY 1, [2001] 2010. 19 * * * 20 SECTION 2. SECTION 5524 OF TITLE 42 IS AMENDED BY ADDING A 21 PARAGRAPH TO READ: ' 22 5524. Two year limitation. 23 The following actions and proceedings must be commenced 24 within two years: 25 * * * 26 (8-)- -An act-ionr-te rceove-r damagoo- for--injury--to--a-peroon 27 or f-er- the-death-of a -'-pcroeH--oo-uaed-^y--the -expooure to 28 aabcot-os shall--be commenced-withifl--two--yca-ro from-the-date 29 the--person wa-s- informed by-a~l-iccnae4-phyaician-t-hat the 30 poroon-hos nn-i-njury whi-eh-i-g -caused-by-ouch eaepeouror 20010S0216B1576 6 1 (8) AN ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO A PERSON 2 OR FOR THE DEATH OF A PERSON CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS. 3 THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUCH ACTION MUST BE COMMENCED SHALL BE 4 COMPUTED FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE PERSON IS INFORMED BY A 5 HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE SOME 6 COMPONENT OF THE HEALING ARTS BY A LICENSE, PERMIT. 7 CERTIFICATE OR REGISTRATION ISSUED BY A COMMONWEALTH 8 LICENSING AGENCY OR BOARD OR AN EQUIVALENT AGENCY OR BOARD IN 9 ANOTHER STATE THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN INJURED BY SUCH 10 EXPOSURE OR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE PERSON KNEW. OR IN THE 11 EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE, AS DETERMINED BY THE TRIER 12 OF FACT, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. THAT HE HAD AN INJURY WHICH WAS 13 CAUSED BY SUCH EXPOSURE, WHICHEVER DATE OCCURS FIRST. 14 Section 2- 3. This act shall take effect in 60 days. L14L42RLE/20010S0216B1576 7 PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS. 223, 1576 PRINTER'S NO. 1617 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 216 "of INTRODUCED BY TARTAGLIONE, BELL, WAGNER, MELLOW, STOUT, MUSTO, O'PAKE, SCHWARTZ, LAVALLE, HUGHES, COSTA, KASUNIC, BODACK, BOSCOLA, KUKOVICH AND STACK, JANUARY 31, 2001 SENATE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE AMENDMENTS, DECEMBER 11, 2001 AN ACT 1 Amending TitA-c 12--(Judiciary and Judicial-Procedure)--of-the 2 Pennoylvania Consolidated Statutea-,--further providing- for 3 cooto---for Commonwealth portion-of fi-neg and for -l-i-mit-ationo 4 of- act-ione-. 5 AMENDING TITLES 15 (CORPORATIONS AND UNINCORPORATED 6 ASSOCIATIONS) AND 42 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE) OF 7 THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES, PROVIDING FOR 8 LIMITATIONS ON ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES RELATING TO 9 CERTAIN MERGERS OR CONSOLIDATIONS; AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR 10 CERTAIN STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND FOR CERTAIN TRANSFERS. <-- <-- 11 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 12 hereby enacts as follows: 13 Section 1.--Sections 1-72-5.1 and-3571(ej--of -T-i-tle 42 of the <-- 14 Pennsylvania--Conoolidatcd -Statut-ce-are amended t-o read; 15 S 17J5-.-3r;------COOt-fK 16 -fse)--CiviJ- caoco.--Subject-- to nabaection--ff-H--the-cooto -to be 17 charged by diotr-ict-juoticeo- in every-civ-il caoc>v--ex-eept ao 18 otherwioc--provided in-thio-oection;-- ohall-bc ao -followo; 19 ft)--Acti-ono--involving $500-or 20 -loos- $30.-90 21 f2-)--Actiono involving more--than 1 $-500 but -not -more-than $2-, 000 ....................... .. . . .. .--$40. Q0 2 4^3--Actiona -involving more than 3 $2, 000 but--not mor-e--than-$4-,-Q00 . , tv............. ..... . $50.00 4 44-3--Act-iono involving -more-t-hon 5 $4t-G-60-but-xiot-mcarc-than $8, 000. .....,-v-; - :...........-tt-.- .-t.- $75.00 6 45-J--fcandlo-rd-t-enant aotiono involving 7 leo-o than-$2-j-00Q-.. .....................................r.............................. $40.00 8 40-3-----Londlord- tenant -aeti-ono- -aaivolving more 9 than $2t 000 but- not--more--than--$4-,-&60. - !-. . -.-r-7-r.. . : $5D . 00 10 47-3----- landlord" tenant -actiono involving more 11 than-$4-7 000--but not-more than--$-8-, 600:-r. . rv-$7. 00 12 4#3-----Order-of-execution:.-, ;..........................t . . $22.50 13 403---- Objection-t-o-lcvy-.- . . v----. -$34?. 00 14 4-A63---- Rel-notatoment of complaint.. --$ -5.00 15 Ouch coote ohall include all chargco except the--cento of a 16 diatriot--juofeAoo-1^)- t-ranacript ef -every -proceeding-on-' appeal or 17 certiorari--(-Including affidavit and cert-if-ioatc3--whieh ohaH-be 18 $2.50 -per -feranacr-ipt -Said coat a -ahall not- include-;--however-, t-hc 19 coot of pootago-and rcgiotcr-od-mail which ahall bc-bome-by-the 20 plaintif-f 21 -(a--1) Cuot-ody-oaeeo;--Except--ao provided-in oection 22 1725 (c) (2-3 (v)--(-relating to -eatabliahment--o-f fcco and- chargoof 23 and aubject -fee ouboectlon- ()>-in a euotody eapc>-- the -court of 24 common pleaa ohall, -in-addition to-the coat- provided- by -general 25 rule, aoacaa -a coot-of $5.00. -Eighty -per-eent -of the--funds 26 generated by-the..charge under fchia--oufeocct-lon shall--be 27 tranomifetod by the- prothonotary to-the- Admin-ietrative-Qf-f-loo to 28 pay for--t-he -i-tnplomentafei-oR-ef acct-ion-lDM--(-relating to 29 availab-rl-ity-of- criminal- charge inf-ormati-CHi-in - chiId-euotody 30 proceedinga-H- 20010S0216B1617 2 1 4h)--Criminal caeca :--Subject to ouboection-4f -the--ooeto -feo 2 be--chargcd-by--t-he minor-j-udi cinry or by-thc court of- common 3 pleao-where--appropriate in- cvcry-criminal cmc,- except no 4 otherwise provided--i-n- thio--section,- ahall--be-aa fol-howo^- 5 45)----- Summary - conviction?--except--motor- vehicle 6 CaOOO . --.................... ..................................... -.-r. . - ,-t. .--$58-5-0 7 42-)---- Summary--eonvict ion?- -TOotor- vchiolea--caoca-r - 8 other than-paragraph--(3h~ ................. ................................... --$S2y50- 9 45)--Summary conviction-?- mot-or- vehicle caooo, 10 hearing demanded... . ............. -- --. i--$5?iS0 11 -H-)--Misdemeanor- i-........... .. ;-t............. . -.-.-r-... ..--$32.50 12 45) F-elonyr-. . ------ -- - $37.50 13 fiueh -coot-e ohall include- all - chargco including-t-he oooto-of 14 giving a diotriet juotice1 a -tranecript--to -the-prooooutor or 15 defendant-?--or both?--if - -requoatred-:--Cuoh-cooto- ohall not -include, 16 however?--the- coot o-f-postage--and-rogiot-ered mail -which--ohall be 17 paid by the--defendant upon- conviction-. 18 -fej--Unelaooif icd--eoat-s- or chargee-;--Gubj-eot- to--ouboectior 19 4f4-?--the--eoofco- to be--eharged-by the ml-nor-judieiary- in the 20 -following inot-ancco not-readily claoolfiable--ohall be ao 21 follow-; 22 45)--Entering tranocript of--judgment--from-anot-hen 23 member-of--the-minor jud-ie-iary.: ................- -$-5.00 24 45)--Marrying each couple,--making record--t-hercofy 25 and-ccrt-if-ieato t-o--thc portico. ...--$55-.CM? 26 43-)--Granting emergency-relief purouant-to 23 -Pa-C.0. 27 Ch. Gl-(relating to protection f-rom-abuoc-) r-. -$10.00 28 44)--I-sauing- -a- aeareh warrant--(except--as-provided 29 -in Duboeetion--(-d) ).... ................ .... is $1-0-.-05 30 45)--Any- other issuance-not otherwise- provided for 20010S0216B1617 3 1 in th-iro oubscct-ien.... ... -r. -t-.-... .. --.. .................--$10-. 08 2 -fd)---- Ccar-eh- warranto-.--In- every caoe -where-a- -ocaroh -war-rant- 3 io--r-cqucotcd- by a1 police offd-c-er,--constable or--other- poaea 4 officer engaged-ac-ouch-in--thc'-cmploy-or ocrvi-ec of the 5 Coirroonwca-1 t-h-or-any-of ita po-l-itica-i- -oubdivioions, no- eoot or 6 charge- ohall-bc--aeoeoaed against -such of fleer-;--the Commonwealth 7 or-poli-t-ical-- ^subdivision for -the iDOuance-of-- ouch-oearch 8 warrant-. 9 4e4----- Pish- and-boating offcnoco--- 10 ~f3r)--Except- ao-provided in paragraph 42)-,- any peroon 11 convicted-of- a oummary-offenoe under Title 30--relating- to 12 fi-sh) -ahai-l, in addition-i-o-thc fine i-mpooed-y be -oentenced--to 13 pay $1-0.aa eooto of -the- i a oiling authority which -eooto ohall 14 include all charge o -including, -when--called-for,--the eooto--o# 15 postage and--rcgiotcrcd -or - eert-ifi-ed-ma-il and- the--eooto of 16 gi-ving-a--tranacript-to the prooccutor-or defendant-;--or both, 17 d-f- requested-. 18 424---Where the-peroon-ehaa?god-with a autwnary-of-fenoe 19 under-get-le -30 dewando-a hearing--the--eooto--of the ioouing 20 authority ohall be--$15 - which eoot-o-oha-11 include- all-chargee 21 including- the ehargoo opcoif-ied in paragraph--(-3.)-- 22 4f4--Annual--increaoc in- eooto.--Beginning on- January -l->--1994-;- 23 and- each January 1- thereafter-;--the- eooto under--oubooetiona--(a-)-;-- 24 4b) and (e)--aha-l-l-be--inereaoed-by the-percentage-of--inorcaoc in 25 the- Consumer-- Price Index -for Urban-Worhcrc -for--feho- immediate 26 preceding-calendar- year which -ohall be publiohed in the 27 rcnnaylvania-Bulletin -annually-by-the- -Supreme -Gourt on or before 28 the-preceding November 30. Thio oubooofelon ohall expire January 29 i. [2001]-"501Q".- 30 5 3571.--Conaaenwealth portion of' finoo, etc. 20010S0216B1617 -4- 2 Jfc zfc. 2 -fe)--Goat'S- i-n district -justice proceedings-:-- 3 -{!)---Goata-collected by a dictrict -juotiec-ohall- be 4 tranoroitted'-monthly -to--the-Gornmonwcalth in amounto ao 5 prescribed- in subsection--9s)--and the balance- shall- be 6 transmitted 'monthly to "the county- in-which -thc-magiotcrial. 7 diot-rlct-i-a--located. Coots-tranomitt-cd to the Commonwealth 8 shall-bo -credited-to the General Fund-;--Coeto- transmit t-ed--to 9 the-county-shall- be -retained- by the--eount-y--lk>r--its uoc; -10 -fS^--Amounta payable to the Coromonwca1 t-hr - 11 -Hi--Summary conviction,--except metor-vehicle 12 caoco.............................. ... .-t"T r it....--$10.00 13 {ii)-----Summary conviction,--met-or-vehicle caoco other 14 than 'subparagraph--^............. .-. . .. --$1-0100 15 (-iil-)-----Summary--conviction, motor vehicle casco, 16 hearing-demanded. .. .r^--........... --$10.00 17 -(-iv) Misdemeanor".-............. -- --$13.00 18 -fv)-----Felony;-. . a... . "j. . .. . $20.00 19 7 -(-vij-----ftoeumpoitr or trespass--involvingr 20 -(ft) $500 or- lcoo. . . . $12.-50 21 -(9--More -t-han $500 -but--not' more- than 22 $2,000................................................. . - i--.-8-rr ---- . . -$20.00 23 -f&)--More- than $2 >-000- but--not- more 24 than-$4', 000 . . . ,-r................. $30.00 25 4&)--More than $4,-000-bat--not-m&r-e 26 than $8-,-000.-. ................ $50.00 27 (-vii-)-----Landlord tenant- pr-oecoding- involving: 28 -(ft)-----$2,000' or lcoo. . . . -...........; ....thw $20.00 29 -(B)--Mor-e-t-han $2,000" but--not-more-than 30 $4,000 ..................... :.-...................- ................ -$25.00 20010S0216B1617 5 1 4S)--Mer-e--fehan $4; 000-but' not more-than ..2 43 ,-0Q0-.- 1-.. .3 ............... ___ q on 4 -an .& ~T ort5 6 7 4*D--Qrdcr of pooocooion. r-r.. 8 43-)----- In aH casco- where costs--arc' borne-by tho-county 9 pursuant- to- section-1725 - 2--(relating--to-agsumpt-ien-of--oummary 10 conviction costo--by- county);--no--ohar-c of -such-coots ohall-bo 11 payable to the Commonweal.th? 12 44-)--Beginning -on January -3r,--1994-,--and-caeh- January 1 13 thereafter-;--the -coots -under-paragraph (2)--shal-l--be--incrcaoed 14 by-tho- percentage-o-- incrcaoc' in-thc -Conoumer--Price--Index- for- 15 Urban Woritoro -for the Immediate- preceding--ea-lendar-yea-r--which 16 ohall bo -publiohcd in the Penney1-van-la Bulletin--annually by 17 the-Cupremo-"Sourt-on--or--before the-preceding- November 39 ? 18 This -paragraph ohall -03tp-i3?c-January-1-,--[20O3rI -2010-? 19 20 flection'-3s--Sect-ion 5524-of Tit-lc 42- la amended -by--adding-a 21 paragraph- to-road* 22 S -55-24-;-----Two-year 1 imitation? 23 The foil owing-act-A-eno- and prococdingo.muot-be eommeneod 24 wit-h-in-two-yearo-r - 25 26 (8)--An action--to recover-datnageo for injury-fee-a-person 27 or for the death -ef- a peroon--canoed--by the-expo pure-to 28 aobcotoo'-ghal-l" be-commeneod-w-it-hin t-wo ycaro from-the-date 29 -fehe-peraon wao-informed bya-liccnoed-physician- that--t-hc 30 -person hao-on--an-jury whlch-io- caused by ouch--expopur-e-?- 20010S0216B1617 6 1 (8) -An--aet-ion t-e-recover damages for-injury- to -ct-po-goon or - f-or--tJae-dea-th -of a - peroee- can oea--fey--exposure-to aobostoo. TTJw^vTnlC-- "4. UX1U.X1--ttJ.44 UiX--U.V-Ai.--WV U'i-WW ^ gOfttpu U'GCr* LX UU1 ^XJ>C QClt-l.* i -LJiL LJX 1I1CU XJ j t* 6 component-of the hcal-ing-ortg by -a -licence,- -pcarmlfeT 7 corti-M-eatc-or--regist-re-t-aon issued by a- Commonwealth 8 liecnod-ng-ogency or board- er an equivalent agency or board in 9 another-state -that--the--person has--been--injured by--ouch 10 expoourc ear-from the -dat-c- on- whi-ch-fcho person--know, or in the- 11 exer-e->oc-ef- -reaoonQbl-o -dil-lqenccJ -as- de-t-ormined-by- the-trier 12 of--feet-, ohoul-d-have Renown- that he-had--an in-jury-whi-ch-wa 13 caused--by-ouch-exposure-,---whichever- date- occurs- first. 14 Section 3- Th-io act sha-H-takc e-f-fect in-60 -day&r- 15 SECTION 1. TITLE 15 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED 16 STATUTES IS AMENDED BY ADDING A SECTION TO READ: 17 1929.1. LIMITATIONS ON ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES RELATING 18 TO CERTAIN MERGERS OR CONSOLIDATIONS. 19 (A) 'LIMITATION ON SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES- 20 (1) EXCEPT AS FURTHER LIMITED IN PARAGRAPH (2) , THE 21 CUMULATIVE SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES OF A 22 DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION THAT WAS INCORPORATED IN THIS 23 COMMONWEALTH PRIOR TO MAY 1, 2001, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE 24 FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE TRANSFEROR 25 DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF THE MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION AND 26 SUCH CORPORATION SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCCESSOR 27 ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES IN EXCESS OF SUCH LIMITATION. 28 (2) IF THE TRANSFEROR HAD ASSUMED OR INCURRED SUCCESSOR 29 ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIOR 30 MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION WITH A PRIOR TRANSFEROR, THEN THE 20010S0216B1617 7 1 FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE PRIOR 2 TRANSFEROR, DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF SUCH EARLIER MERGER 3 OR CONSOLIDATION, SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE LIMITATION SET 4 FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (1) FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE 5 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF A DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION. 6 (B) LIMITATION ON TOTAL ASSETS AVAILABLE TO SATISFY 7 SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES. 8 (1) EXCEPT AS FURTHER LIMITED IN PARAGRAPH (2) , THE 9 ASSETS OF A DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATIONTHAT WAS 10 INCORPORATED IN THIS COMMONWEALTH PRIOR TO MAY 1, 2001, SHALL 11 BE EXEMPT FROM RESTRAINT, ATTACHMENT OR EXECUTION ON 12 JUDGMENTS RELATED TO CLAIMS FOR SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED 13 LIABILITIES IF THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNTS WHICH, AFTER THE TIME 14 OF THE MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION AS TO WHICH THE FAIR MARKET 15 VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS IS DETERMINED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS 16 SUBSECTION AND SUBSECTION (A) , ARE PAID OR COMMITTED TO BE 17 PAID BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION, OR BY OR ON BEHALF 18 OF A TRANSFEROR, IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENTS, JUDGMENTS OR 19 OTHER DISCHARGES OF CLAIMS OF ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES, 20 EXCEED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE 21 TRANSFEROR, DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF THE MERGER OR 22 CONSOLIDATION. 23 (2) IF THE TRANSFEROR HAD ASSUMED OR INCURRED SUCCESSOR 24 ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIOR 25 MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION WITH A PRIOR TRANSFEROR, THEN THE 26 FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE PRIOR 27 TRANSFEROR, DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF SUCH EARLIER MERGER 28 OR CONSOLIDATION, SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE LIMITATION SET 29 FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (1) FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE EXTENT 30 OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE ASSETS OF A DOMESTIC BUSINESS 20010S0216B1617 8 1 CORPORATION. 2 (C) FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS.-- 3 (1) A DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION MAY ESTABLISH THE 4 FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS THROUGH ANY METHOD 5 REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING BY REFERENCE TO 6 THE GOING CONCERN VALUE OF SUCH ASSETS OR TO THE PURCHASE 7 PRICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO OR PAID FOR SUCH ASSETS IN AN ARM'S 8 LENGTH TRANSACTION, OR, IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER READILY 9 AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM WHICH FAIR MARKET VALUE CAN BE 10 DETERMINED, BY REFERENCE TO THE VALUE OF SUCH ASSETS RECORDED 11 ON A BALANCE SHEET. TOTAL ASSETS SHALL INCLUDE INTANGIBLE 12 ASSETS. A SHOWING BY THE DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION OF A 13 REASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TOTAL 14 ASSETS SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THEIR FAIR MARKET 15 VALUE. 16 (2) ONCE A REASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET 17 VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS HAS BEEN THUS ESTABLISHED BY A DOMESTIC 18 BUSINESS CORPORATION, A CLAIMANT DISPUTING THAT DETERMINATION 19 OF VALUE SHALL THENHAVE THEBURDEN OF ESTABLISHING A 20 DIFFERENT FAIR MARKETVALUE OF SUCH ASSETS. 21 (3) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING THE LIMITATIONS SET 22 FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PASSAGE 23 OF TIME, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS AT THE TIME OF 24 A MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION SHALL BE INCREASED ANNUALLY, UNTIL 25 THE EARLIER OF: 26 (I) THE DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT OR OTHER 27 DISCHARGE TO WHICH THE LIMITATIONS IN SUBSECTION (A) OR 28 (B) ARE BEING APPLIED; OR 29 (II) THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH ADJUSTED FAIR MARKET 30 VALUE IS FIRST EXCEEDED BY THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNTS PAID OR 20010S0216B1617 9 1 COMMITTED TO BE PAID BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION. 2 OR BY OR ON BEHALF OF A TRANSFEROR, AFTER THE TIME OF THE 3 MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION AS TO WHICH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE 4 OF TOTAL ASSETS IS DETERMINED FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSECTIONS 5 (A) AND (B) , IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENTS, JUDGMENTS OR 6 OTHER DISCHARGES OF THE SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED 7 LIABILITIES, 8 AT THE RATE EQUAL TO THE PRIME RATE AS LISTED IN THE FIRST 9 EDITION OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL PUBLISHED FOR EACH 10 CALENDAR YEAR SINCE SUCH MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION. PLUS 1%, 11 NOT COMPOUNDED. 12 (D) APPLICATION.-- 13 (1) THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) 14 SHALL APPLY TO MERGERS OR CONSOLIDATIONS EFFECTED UNDER THE 15 LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH OR ANOTHER JURISDICTION CONSUMMATED 16 PRIOR TO MAY 1. 2001. 17 (2) THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) 18 SHALL APPLY TO ALL ASBESTOS CLAIMS, INCLUDING EXISTING 19 ASBESTOS CLAIMS, AND ALL LITIGATION, INCLUDING EXISTING 20 LITIGATION, AND SHALL APPLY TO SUCCESSORS OF A DOMESTIC 21 BUSINESS CORPORATION TO WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIES. 22 <3) THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) 23 SHALL NOT APPLY TO WORKERS * COMPENSATION BENEFITS PAID BY OR 24 ON BEHALF OF AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE ACT 25 OF JUNE 2, 1915 (P.L.736, NO.338) , KNOWN AS THE WORKERS * 26 COMPENSATION ACT, OR COMPARABLE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW OF 27 ANOTHER JURISDICTION. 28 (4) THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) 29 SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY CLAIM AGAINST A DOMESTIC BUSINESS 3 0 CORPORATION THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS- 20010S0216B1617 10 1 RELATED LIABILITY. 2 (5) THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO AN INSURANCE 3 CORPORATION AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3102 {RELATING TO 4 DEFINITIONS). 5 (6) THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) 6 SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER THE NATIONAL 7 LABOR RELATIONS ACT (49 STAT. 449, 29 P.S.C. 151 ET SEQ.), 8 OR UNDER ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. 9 (E) DEFINITIONS.--AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING 10 WORDS AND PHRASES SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS GIVEN TO THEM IN THIS 11 SUBSECTION: 12 "ASBESTOS CLAIM." ANY CLAIM, WHEREVER OR WHENEVER MADE. FOR 13 DAMAGES, LOSSES, INDEMNIFICATION, CONTRIBUTION OR OTHER RELIEF. 14 ARISING OUT OF, BASED ON OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO ASBESTOS, 15 INCLUDING PROPERTY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INSTALLATION, PRESENCE 16 OR REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS, THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO 17 ASBESTOS, INCLUDING ANY CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH. MENTAL 18 OR EMOTIONAL INJURY, RISK OF DISEASE OR OTHER INJURY OR THE 19 COSTS OF MEDICAL MONITORING OR SURVEILLANCE. THE TERM SHALL ALSO 20 INCLUDE ANY CLAIM MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY PERSON EXPOSED TO 21 ASBESTOS OR ANY REPRESENTATIVE, SPOUSE, PARENT, CHILD OR OTHER 22 RELATIVE OF ANY SUCH PERSON. 23 "SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES." ANY LIABILITIES. 24 WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, ASSERTED OR UNASSERTED. ABSOLUTE OR 25 CONTINGENT, ACCRUED OR UNACCRUED, LIQUIDATED OR UNLIQUIDATED OR 26 DUE OR TO BECOME DUE, RELATED IN ANY WAY TO ASBESTOS CLAIMSf 27 THAT WERE ASSUMED OR INCURRED BY A DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION 28 OR FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION AS A RESULT OF OR IN CONNECTION 29 WITH A MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION, OR THE PLAN OF MERGER OR 30 CONSOLIDATION RELATED THERETO, WITH OR INTO ANOTHER DOMESTIC 20010S0216B1617 11 1 BUSINESS CORPORATION OR FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION EFFECTED 2 UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH OR ANOTHER JURISDICTION OR 3 WHICH ARE RELATED IN ANY WAY TO ASBESTOS CLAIMS BASED ON THE 4 EXERCISE OF CONTROL OR THE OWNERSHIP OF STOCK OF SUCH 5 CORPORATION PRIOR TO SUCH MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION. THE TERM 6 SHALL ALSO INCLUDE LIABILITIES WHICH, AFTER THE TIME OF THE 7 MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION AS TO WHICH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF 8 TOTAL ASSETS IS DETERMINED FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSECTIONS (A) AND 9 (B) , WERE OR ARE PAID OR OTHERWISE DISCHARGED, OR COMMITTED TO 10 BE PAID OR OTHERWISE DISCHARGED, BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE 11 CORPORATION, OR BY OR ON BEHALF OF A TRANSFEROR, IN CONNECTION 12 WITH SETTLEMENTS. JUDGMENTS OR OTHER DISCHARGES IN THIS 13 COMMONWEALTH OR ANOTHER JURISDICTION. 14 "TRANSFEROR." A DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION OR FOREIGN 15 BUSINESS CORPORATION FROM WHICH SUCCESSOR ASBESTOS-RELATED 16 LIABILITIES ARE ASSUMED OR INCURRED. 17 SECTION 2. SECTION 5524 OF TITLE 42 IS AMENDED BY ADDING A 18 PARAGRAPH TO READ: 19 5524.' TWO YEAR LIMITATION. 20 THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS MUST BE COMMENCED 21 WITHIN TWO YEARS; 22 * * * 23 (8) AN ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO A PERSON 24 OR FOR THE DEATH OF A PERSON CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS 25 SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH 26 THE PERSON IS INFORMED BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN THAT THE 27 PERSON HAS BEEN INJURED BY SUCH EXPOSURE, OR UPON THE DATE ON 28 WHICH THE PERSON KNEW, OR IN THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE 29 DILIGENCE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, THAT THE PERSON HAD AN INJURY 30 WHICH WAS CAUSED BY SUCH EXPOSURE, WHICHEVER DATE OCCURS 20010S0216B1617 12 1 FIRST. 2 SECTION 3. SECTION 8128 OF TITLE 42 IS AMENDED TO READ: 3 8128. TRANSFER OF CLAIM TO AVOID POLICY OF COMMONWEALTH. 4 (A) GENERAL RULE.--IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CREDITOR OR 5 OBLIGEE TO COMMENCE AN ACTION ON OR TO TRANSFER ANY CLAIM 6 AGAINST A RESIDENT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF 7 HAVING SUCH CLAIM COLLECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN A FORUM WHICH 8 ACCORDS SUCH RESIDENT LESS FAVORABLE EXEMPTIONS FROM ATTACHMENT 9 OR EXECUTION THAN ARE ACCORDED BY THIS COMMONWEALTH, OR FOR THE 10 PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING SUCH RESIDENT OF THE RIGHT TO HAVE HIS 11 PERSONAL EARNINGS WHILE IN THE HANDS OF HIS EMPLOYER EXEMPT FROM 12 APPLICATION TO THE PAYMENT OF HIS DEBTS. 13 (B) REMEDY.--IN ADDITION TO REMEDY BY INJUNCTION OR 14 OTHERWISE, A RESIDENT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY 15 ANY ACTION BY A CREDITOR OR OBLIGEE IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION 16 (A) SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE CREDITOR OR OBLIGEE 17 FOR TREBLE THE AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM SUCH RESIDENT IN VIOLATION 18 OF THIS SECTION AND REASONABLE COUNSEL FEES. THE TRANSFER OF ANY 19 CLAIM AGAINST THE RESIDENT AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY ACTION 20 THEREON OUTSIDE THIS COMMONWEALTH SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE 21 OF A PURPOSE TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A) . 22 (C) APPLICATION TO TITLE 15.--THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 23 SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN 15 PA.C.S. S 24 1929.1 (RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES 25 RELATING TO CERTAIN MERGERS OR CONSOLIDATIONS) . 26 SECTION 4. THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT AS FOLLOWS: 27 (1} THE ADDITION OF 42 PA.C.S. 5524(8) SHALL TAKE 28 EFFECT IN 60 DAYS. 29 (2) THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT 30 IMMEDIATELY. L14L42RLE/20010S0216B1617 13