Document NE713eGXa8Eeb5wkEoYXVyrMg

i u 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 "ALSO MEMBER OF NEW JERSEY BAR 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 March 7,2002 via HAND DELIVERY Honorable Allan L. Tereshko Philadelphia Court ofCommon 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 judgmentbased on 15 Pa.C.SA.. 1929.1. This is theresponse onbehalfofall ofthe cases subjectto the motion in whichtheplaintiffis representedby Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler. Plaintiffsoppose the Crown motion for ajl ofthe reasons set forth below. I. THE STATUTE DOES NOT ESTABLISH A LIABILITY DEFENSE First, summaryjudgmentis inappropriatebecausethe statute at issue does not establish adefensetothe JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 2 rlamic against Crowninthese cases. The statute sets forth a formula forcapping the total cumulative responsibility forasbestos-related claimsofcorporationsthatmeet certain criteria (designed tobenefit only Crown). Hie statute does notmake the corporation immune from lawsuits, however. To the 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 nothavetohonorthexn. Indeed, farfromestablishinga procedural mechanism forgaining dismissal from lawsuits, the lawprovides thattheeligible corporation's assets "... shall be exemptfromrestraint, attachment, and executiononjudgments..."forasbestosrelated claims. l5Pa.C.S.A.1929.1(bXl). Thus, it is clear thatthe plan ofthe statuteis to attemptto insulate Crown from answering forjudgments against it Nowhere does the statutemake Crown immuneor otherwise provide authority for a pretrial dismissal of Crown on that basis, however.1 Indeed,the distinctionis apotentially crucial one foraplaintiff. In a caseinwhich aplaintiffsettles with some defendants and takes otherstotrial, there canbe a substantial difference inrecovery for aplaintiffdepending uponwhetherthe statute atissue entitles Crowntopretrialjudgment IfCrown is not entitled topretrialjudgment, then itmay beassigned a share ofthe liability verdict, and ifthe statute renders theplaintiffunableto collect Crown's shareofthe verdict, then theplaintiffcan cal! uponthe otherliable defendants to fund Crown's share. Raker v. AC and S. 562 Pa. 290, 755 A2d 664, 672 (2000). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. 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 ofwhether 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 bythe benefitthelegislaturehasgiven to Crown,ratherthan to have intended thatthevictim be compensated, to the fullest extentpossible, from other sources. During debate in the Senate, Senator Stack stated: Now, I know many of my colleagues are concerned about insuring that individuals injuredbyasbestos receivejust compensation,butit should bethese companies that were actually involved in the production and installation of asbestos that should bear the cost ofcompensating individuals exposed to asbestos and suffering health problems. 2001 LegislativeJournal - Senate 1232 (December 11,2001) (a copy ofrelevantpages from the Senate Journal is appended hereto as Exhibit"A"). The intentto allow injured plaintiffs to recoverfortheirinjuries can best be effectuated by allowingajuryto determinewhether Crownisliable fortheplaintiffs injuries, ratherthan to allow pretrial judgment in favor ofCrown. n. THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THESE PLA PS Even ifthe statute canbe read as authorizing summaryjudgmentifCrown has metthe statutory criteria for its liability cap, Crownwould notbe entitledtojudgmentbecause it would be unconstitutional to apply the statute to these cases, which embody claims against Crown thathadvested before this statute was enacted.2 Article 1, 11 ofthe PennsylvaniaConstitutionprovides inrelevantpart that "... everymanforan injray donehim in his...person... shall have remedy by due course oflaw..." Ourcourts have held thatthis provision does not removefromthelegislaturethepowerto abolish totally a cause ofaction. Singerv. Sheppard.464Pa. 387,346 A.2d 897,903 (1975), or to abolish a cause ofaction against a particular class ofdefendants, Sherwood v. Elgart. 383 Pa. 12 0,117 A.2d 899,901 (1955). However, the legislature cannot constitutionally extinguisha 2 Pursuant to PaJLCiv.P. 235, plaintiffs are providing to the Attorney General ofPennsylvania a notice oftheir claims that 15 Pa.C.S.A. 1929.1 is unconstitutional. JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 4 vested cause ofaction or an accrued claim. Gibson v. Commonwealth. 490Pa. 156,415 A.2d 80,83(1980). A cause of action in tort accrues on the date ofaccident or injury. Id. Underthis constitutional principle, courts ofthis Commonwealthhaverepeatedly declinedto apply newlyenacted substantive lawto tort claims thathad already accrued. In Gibson v. Commonwealth, supra, tire 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 theplaintifissought compensation, the legislature passed a lawcreating sovereign immunity. The Commonwealthpreliminarily objected tothe Complaint, claiming thatthe statutemade it immune from the lawsuit In response, the Commonwealth Court granted the objections, dismissing the lawsuit The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding thatthe statute's eliminationofaremedyindamages fromthe Commonwealthviolated Article 1, 11 ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution. In so doing, the court stated that, underthat constitutional provision, "Itiswell-settled thatthe Legislature may not extinguish a right ofaction which has already accrued to a claimant" 415 A.2d at 83. Accord. Garvevv- Rosanelli. 144 Pa. Cmwlth. 588,601 A.2d 1334,1337. allocatur denied. 532 Pa. 648,614 A.2d 1144(1992). Justasthe courtshave appliedthis principleto the grant ofimmunityto aparty defendant, thecourtshave prohibitedthe abrogation ofacause ofactionbased on the eliminationofaright 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 havesufficientmeans ofexhaust to avoid the employee's exposureto silica dust Theplaintiffwas diagnosed withsilicosisin 1935. A verdictinhis favorwasupheld on appeal. Inaffirmingtiieplaintiffsjudgment, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that a 1937 repeal ofthe 1905 statute JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGES removed the basis ofthe negligence case against it. The courtheld that: "The vested rightunderthe 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), adefendant in an automobile accident case attempted to exclude proofofmedical bills that had been paid by a medical insurer on behalfoftheplaintiff. The accident had occurred before enactment ofan amendment to the MotorVehicle Financial Responsibility Law that clearly extinguishedthe plaintiffsright to recoversuch medical expenses. The Pennsylvania SuperiorCourt 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 fl 9911. affirmed. 535 Pa. 252.634 A.2d 1099 (1993), the Pennsylvania SuperiorCourtruled thatit would beunconstitutional to apply thestatutoryextinguishmentofa causeofaction forwrongful birthtoacause ofaction raisingthattheory ofrecoverywhenthe allegedly wrongful birth had occurred prior to the enactment ofthe statute. These cases establishbeyond doubtthat the statute at issueherein cannotconstitutionally be appliedto the cases that arethe subject ofCrown's instant motion, all ofwhichaccruedbefore the statutebecame law. In apparentrecognition ofthestatute'sunconstitutionality onthis ground, Crown'smotiontakes greatpainsto characterize the statute as onethat"variestheremedies" availabletothese plaintiffs. This spuriousformulation does not savethe statute from the constitutional challengeto its retroactive effect Calling the statutory scheme JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 6 one that has `Varied" the remedies does notmake it so. Crown seeks complete dismissal from these cases. If, as Crown contends, the statute authorises grant ofjudgment forCrown,then the legislaturehas extinguishedthese plaintiflfe' remedies against Crown. It appears thatCrownbelievesthatthe sense in whichtheplaintiffs' remedies havebeen "varied" is that ifthe plaintiffs had been able to bring theirclaimsbefore 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. Itisonlyby anintolerably cynical twistingofwords thatthis elimination ofremedy canbetermed amere variation.3 Itisplainthatapplicationofthestatutorycaptodismisstheseplaintiffe' claims against Crownwould violate Article 1, 11 ofthe Pennsylvania Constitution.4 in. THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMERCE CLAUSE Crown's summaryjudgmentmotion also must be denied because the statuteundo-which it claims an entitlementto dismissal is unconstitutional on its face as itis in violation ofthe Commerce Cause oftheUnited States Constitution, U.S. Const Art I, 8, cl. 3. It iswell established thatthe federal Commerce Clause denies states thepowerto burden the interstate flowofarticles ofcommerce. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson T.inesTnc-- 514 U.S. 175,115 S.Ct. 1331 (1995); Annenbere v. Commonwealth. 562Pa. 570,757A.2d333, 3 Furthermore, in Stroback v. Camaioni. supra, ifthe new statute had been held to apply, the plaintiffcould 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 injuiy, even ifthe person retains another cause ofaction, and even ifthe retained cause of action is against the same defendant. Jenkins v. Hospital ofthe Medical College ofPennsylvania. 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 SupremeCourthas 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 Companyoflndianav. Limbach. 486 U.S. 269,273,108 S.Ct. 1803 (1988). Further, "... where simple economic protectionism is effected by state legislation, a virtuallypersenileofinvalidityhas been erected." City ofPhiladelphia 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 in this 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 isno statutory limit on the successorasbestos-related liabilities of a corporationthat was not incorporated in Pennsylvania. Thus, the statute is blatant economicprotectionism; it grants a clearcompetitive advantage to aPennsylvania corporationbyputting a caponits liabilities. Thishasthe inevitable effect ofincreasing the liabilities ofout-of-state corporations, thus burdeningtheirinterests in away prohibited by the Commerce Clause. There is a wealth ofcases thatplainly demonstrate the constitutional infirmity ofthe instant statute. Perhaps mostpertinent is Annenberg v. Commonwealth, supra. There, the Pennsylvania Supreme Courthad before itataxationstatute inwhichPennsylvania citizens hadtopaypersonalpropertytax on thevalue ofcertain stock. The statute was drafted in such away thatthe tax was due only on the stock ofcorporationsthat 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 discriminatorynature ofthe statute, the courtnoted thatthe burdenwas on the Commonwealth to establish that thelaw "advances a legitimatelocalpurpose that cannot be adequately served byreasonablynondiscriminatoiy alternatives." Jd., quotingNewEnergy Co, oflndianav. Limbach. 486 U.S. at 278. Similarly, in Boston Stock Exchangev. State Tax Commission. 429U.S. 318,97 S.Ct. 599 (1977),die United States Supreme Court reviewed a New York statute that imposed atransfer 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 fipaneial advantage to sales on theNew Yorkexchanges at the expense oftheregional exchanges." 429U.S. at331. Ultimately, the Courtinvalidated thelaw, statingthat: "Because itimposes agreatertaxliability onout-ofstate 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 ofPhiladelphiav. NewJersey, supra, the Supreme Courtstruck downaNew Jersey lawthat prohibited the importation intoNewJerseyofwastematerials that originated outside ofthestate. The Third Circuit, inJuzwin v. Asbestos Corporation. Ltd.. 900F.2d 686 (3d Cir.), cert, denied. 498 U.S. 896, 111 S.Ct246(1990),reviewedaNewJerseystatuteoflimitationstollmgprovisioiL Therelevant limitations period foran action torecoverdamages for asbestos-caused personal injuries wastwo years. However, the JUDGE TERESHKO RE: RESPONSE TO CROWN MOTION PAGE 9 tolling provision excited from the statutory period any time in which a defendantthat was not incorporated in NewJersey had no corporate office there, was not registered to do business there, and had no appointed agent forservice in the state. In Juzwin. theplaintiffsued Carey Canada, Inc., morethan two years afterthe plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis. Carey Canada's circumstances fitprecisely the criteriaofthetolling statute. In the trial court, Carey Canada moved for summaryjudgment on statute oflimitations grounds. Itsmotion was denied. On appeal, theThird Circuit reversed,holdingthat the tolling statutewas facially discriminatory under the Commerce Clause because it applied to out-of-state corporations but nottoNewJersey 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 beapplied "withconsiderablerigor," and is"virtually aperserule ofinvalidity." Id. The court found that the state could notjustify the statute underthat standardof heightened review. Here, it is certain that the Commonwealth cannotjustify the discriminatory treatmentaffordedto out-ofstate corporations, asthereasonforthe statute is to benefit a single Pennsylvania corporation, CrownCork& Seal. Ifthe Commonwealth's legitimatepurpose wereto limitthe lawofsuccessor liability, itsurely couldhave done so across theboard. This statute clearly,palpably, and plainly violates the Commerce ClauseoftheUnited 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 statutevidates several other constitutional provisions. The statute's discriminationagainst out-of-state corporations, as well asrunning afoul ofthe Commerce Clause, mustbe foundto 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 NewJerseylawthat exempted certain nonprofitcorporations frompayingreal estate taxes. Among the criteria forexemptionwas that the corporation had been incorporated in NewJersey. The Court found the statute unconstitutional, holdingthat the disparate treatment ofdomestic and foreign corporations was violative ofthe out-of-state corporation'srightto equal protection. The same flawclearly infectsthe statute upon which Crown seeksjudgment In addition, the removal from an injured plaintiffofthe rightto recover from only Pennsylvania corporations whoseliability isbased ontherules 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 actionsthat survive the death ofthe injured party is aviolation ofthe constitutional right to equal protection). B. The Law Is An Unconstitutional Exercise Of Legislative Power (I) The Statute Sets An Unconstitutional Limit On Personal Injury Damages The statute also violates several state constitutional provisions that limit thepower ofthe legislature. First, the Pennsylvania Constitution permits the legislature to pass laws limiting the compensation to be paid by employersto injured employees, but goes onto statethat"... inno other cases shall the General Assembly limit the amountto berecovered for injuries resulting in death, or forinjuries to persons orproperty,..." Pennsylvania Constrtution,article3, 18. Here, the legislature has purported to limit the damages thatmayberecovered in thirdparty actions byasbestos victims. Althoughthe statuteherein sets a limitfrom the standpointofthe amount ofmoney aparticulardefendant canbe required to pay, ratherthan from theperspective oftheplaintiff, nothing inthe constitutional provisionwould except this lawfromtheprohibition on limiting recovery amounts. The legislaturehas donejustwhatthe constitutionforbids in article 3, 18, and thereforethe statutemustbe 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 ofevading 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. niifnnrv Maire. 358 Pa. 309,56 A.2d 675,677 (1948), quoting Seabolt v. Commissioners. 187 Pa. 318,41 A. 22(1898). Therefore,the court's inquiry iswhetherthe classifications made inthe statutearereal distinctions. 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 statuteare to benefitCrown alone, notthe result ofgenuine distinctions. The first classification inthe statute isbetween corporationsand all otherbusiness entities. The second is betweencorporations incorporated in Pennsylvania and those incorporated anywhere else. Third, thestatute classifiesPennsylvania corporations incorporated before and after May 1,2001. Next, the statute separates domestic corporations incorporated before May 1,2001, on thebasis ofwhethertheyhave liability ftitasbestos- causedpersonal injuries. Finally, itdivides those domestic corporations incorporated beforeMay 1,2001, who have liability for asbestos-caused personal injuries, into those whose liability is as a successorandthosewhose liabilityis based on any otherlegal theory. These classifications areplainly intended solelytobenefitCrown, 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 thatthelegislaturehas attempted to evade the constitutional proscription against special laws. This conclusion is buttressed bythe legislativehistory. Senator Waugh, speaking in support ofthe bill, stated that the legislation "... has obviously been here for quite some time inthe General Assembly andbeen identified, as thetwo speakers beforemeso eloquentlypointed out, as the CrownCork & Seal legislation." 2001 LegislativeJournal- Senate 1232 (December 11,2001). One ofthetwo speakers referredto by SenatorWaugh was SenatorTomlinson, who termed the bill one that "... will help the company CrownCork & Seal..." 2001 Legislative Journal - Senate 1230 (December 11,2001). The statuteplainly constitutes special legislation, and therefore, mustbe found unconstitutional as violative ofarticle 3, 32 ofthe PennsylvaniaConstitution. See Harrisburg School Dist. V. Hickok, 563 Pa. 391,761 A.2d 1132,1136 (2000) ("... fins court has held that a classification isperseunconstitutional whenthe class consists ofonemember and itisimpossibleorhighly unlikely thatanother canjoindie class."); Allegheny Countvv. Monzo. 509Pa. 26,500 A.2d 1096,1105-1106 (1985). (3) The Statute Was Constitutionally Flawed In The Manner Of Its Enactment Finally., the lawwaspassed in violation ofartide3, 1 and article 3, 3 ofthe PennsylvaniaConstitution. The former section provides that: "No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on itspassagethrough eitherHouse, asto change its original purpose." The latterprovision stalesthat "No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed initstitle, excepta general appropriation bill or a bill codifying orcompiling the law orapartthereof." Here,thepurpose ofthe statute atissuewas altered substantially aftertherelevantbill wasfirst 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, furtherproviding forlimitations ofactions." Its only substancewasaproposed amendment of42 PaC.S.A. 5524 to setthe statuteoflimitations for asbestos-caused injuries and deaths attwoyears from the date a plaintiffwas informed by his doctorofhis injury. A copy ofSenate Bill No. 216 (Printer's No. 223) is appended hereto as Exhibit "B."5 The original billwas passed unanimously by the Senate on March 14,2001 (a copy ofthe history ofSenate Bill 216, obtained from the Pennsylvanialegislativewebsite, is appended hereto as Exhibit "C"). In theHouse 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 costs tobecharged by thejudicial system for certain cases. The newtitle ofthe bill read: "Amending Title42 (Judiciary andJudicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for COSTS, FOR COMMONWEALTHPORTIONOF FINES AND FORlimitationsofactions." This amended version ofthe bill, as yet containing nomention ofthe limitation on successorasbestos-related liabilities,passedtheHouse of Representatives, with one vote against, on December 5,2001. When the bill was returned to the Senate for concurrence in theHouse amendments, dieball was again amended, and given Printer's No. 1617. Forthe firsttime, one ofthe houses added thelanguage uponwhich 5 The court can takejudicial 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 A.2d 917 (2000). JUDGE TERESHKO 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 changestothe statute oflimitations provision, 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 inbothhouses, itwas 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 amended bill passedthe House, forthefirst time there appeared language to change substantively the lawofsuccessorliability. Therefore,thepurposeofthe bill was altered twice, eachtimein amannerthat changed its original purpose. In addition, the final bill contained two distinct subjects - the statute oflimitations amendment and the substantive changein thelawofsuccessor liability. As a result, itis clearthatthe lawwas passed in violation ofarticle 3, 1 and 3 ofthePennsylvania Constitution. See Common Cause ofPennsylvania v. Commonwealth. 668 A.2d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), affirmed. 544Pa. 512.677 A.2d 1206(1996). Crown's motion for summaiyjudgmentmustbe denied onthe 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:jmd 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 Coik & 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, 21** Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Mark G. Strauss, Esquire Early & Strauss 360 Lexington Avenue, 20* Floor New York, NY 10017 George W. Howard, HI, 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. 15* Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 ExESt^I Lj 1230 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL--SENATE D1 Ul, An Act saxauSag the *ct tfAngst 6,1941 (RLS61, VtoSS), ittfswd to as *e?eamsylvaci3 Baud ofRetaSnaai) Fvolelm^ fonbjcTprtniOas fcrnxmjbosJdp *faeativisojycoiaininec, CcosiSered Jbc second timeand agrocdm. Ordered, To fee printed cn Ibe Calendar ftr fciid crater- I rim. 1 SB 56 (Pr, No. 1618) (AmrndcxQ (Rcrtponsd) (Cowairrtxa) Aa Act agawBagftc net ofjMy&'iytS <?!16g,>Scv?2),1juci-- as Ibe Storage Tank nd SpB Pmtotioi) An. deGnmg*eawbonnntri roaEa^;iidpTrvid^ibrcerimadt&*ft^1IjBcrtretee fixm siangc Kks. BILLS OVER IN ORDER,. SB 837 CPr. No. 1619) (Aaictuted) Otcrcf^ftod) (Conor- SB 533 sad SB 587 -- tVx&eot objection, the bah -were passed over 4d their erder BT IbCrttjDcsl ofSenatorFICCOLA. BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION Ao Actanas%dicaaflf 1989 (pJ_),Ko3^Jh>DWB *s the Sewage Tank mu? Sy31_PrcvtsJ>oe Art, 4>er ptovidktg far pajroent efcertain etnas fiist Ibe Uksdmnsri StanceTknktestoarf- fication Thud; sftd fir Underground Storage Tank Smtoasnnai SB 656 (Pt No. 1574) -- The Senateproceededto cnasidcrtHeoafriustd^earided: AAd anead&n TMa 18 (&mq and Oftna^ wad f2 Qwjj. Cray end Jw&U Procedure) of'fce.JpETaisyJvaoi* Cetx1idaled So- access to odaroaSeft; tod fertberjawnfoe &*-minds!ne fcom* pwerand firtests rfpeoaoaJJnriaoBeden onxposaas etssSde rife HB1633 CPt No. 3033) CRqtponedl/rrwrrrTms) An Ad&aoufi(henetcffenc2,1915 &LJ36,Na33Q> bna asttdffiskB^Coopee>dcioAe^siiia'deBoin'Vioaiiedcnl4Sp' east" special order orbusiness SCmJESaSmAXCAIJ^ARNal QaDfiSdcredAc eeecudlinefind agreed to, Ordered. To be printed on file Cakndar forthird consukn- SENAnSCONCOBS INBOOSEAMENDMENTS ASAMEPiDB> BILL OVER INORDER SBZI6 (P*. Np. ia7)--Tfee Senate proceeded to cocsites&nixftbefcSLcBtxficd: BB1333--Wttoi* olgeflite^ He HInaspassed eefaj Jds crier n die impest oCSuanoc FKXJQLA. RXTOKISBnOM COMMITTEES Sawc* 7HOMFSO( front Ac Conoikto at Ajycpja. trees* reported ihe&BowxQg bft BB1944(Be7bt.3O7Q(Arondedl0fc(sq>4tted[) AsAn-------- *#gpessfe ncotaem, Seen** crofteramontstopesaamwbo ate 6rJie^aeamte*pJ5S9<3itscras:iairk4eimor33tKxte3;ie** oricgifbaiaB^ tsdi&ug ptwW** aa taarin rod Sacri affloo far sdies ofthe fist efes; nrimKnyeafes and fao&Gotg fer fowls Sar As Act mending TWes 15 (OotpoutSeut tad BAw|vtet Assoai!to(i5)airi4Z Oericuv ^kaSei^pMiaedae4tftbepicaM||. anJa ConscSdauJ StetMB^ providingfar Eg&tieas am ateestm tad BeftiBtfe rekrfmgs; cerate uagastreisisifitaiBfi^and Mi pnrri&gter coeds sautes ortimteatSotKattf ter cerate vm&m. CtotbetftjcsSoB, flu Senate c*n*ar mite araqxJaxttona^bytoeHan* as amendedty Ibe Scaste. to Senite SB No.210 Sonar PH33QLA. MadnBesitkn^ |tooae datdie Scotee goconCTrlnfegTw.nAocxacaaitelyriallag^M^.. tise Ssetq, to SomeBin No. 21& ;m if n,*-r pc- *"i . CbAecpiesaoe, W31 lbs SanK agree id die tootiotf? Seoritr BRIGHTBEL. fiom the Committee cn Xaks and Ececdivc Nomtnaticas, jqpcnsd the fi^krgrfag b9k: SB 2J6 {Pr. fie. J6TJ) (AmevJeiS) (Rereponed) (Cmctor- Aa Act asnesdUc Tfcjcs IS {CoreciaDOps awl U^bce^cmed AKsocIancro) Bid ^ CJotfcjasynxdJod>eil Procedure)of& PeanjjJ" Tgrcq3<B<aiaso*i*c,jio>neWe*-'t--< bledIw- Mll*tfejcJa- J*b--jg--to--c--e--ra.t1e**?s_ne*-^-as o-r_ccaBnS.a.6d#5^oaS\aqdfmiwflicr lieFRESCOING ^OFHCBR.B* Chaatecasmaesto gsd* gga from Hpcfa, Senator Ibrnfaccu. SosateTOMUNSCW. Madam ftemflete, to smc&dmeatiNt as pat ito Senate B31No. 21d'flifcCouflniteeaoititer rod ExecotjveNcgAffltisgmapie<AnBtgthritt3Iie^pfliecaa- pany Cnwn Cork &. Sral, aa arfonadoial caapsny -with te worldbc3gaaito5k)C2KdioFh3zdidpisia,ixa5it^cflas6T* ny igscrfe. Ccowg Ceric & Seatas acanipangtheft cates cans and tastes sail boBle caps, itbes a ttcosand onpteyees ad a psyroU ofabqatS47jaflEcn, pegs tealtans and Steetttts of shout J4 jnmSaa, sad besidesftte It does ActaelsIBcB BcQaef 2001 LEGISLAUVE JOURNAL-- SENATE 1231 -worthcftmsHiess in tbe Star* ofPennsylvania wj& otherPcaa- rylvaEcbajcnpatucs-So, its iiaancij] icpacrcn this SSaK 5s veJ5 very impartial* and at b time tAca we art losing more and more jobs and at a rime wben tvc are losing good, fkmlly-scsTaHling jbte, and at a time v*ea we art losing rafiftafacturibgjobs, this cmpaxyis critically important the financial wdfcrc ofjbei^ many fazmBefi is any district. &^soff^mg tob^pgaedtaifaao. Tlteybavebecguijg siege by Stlgsmtsand lawyers from Texas aad Mississippi, and ibcy are nowjpayiogto bare ofabout SlMhuDwa ayearin Kr>gatirm zkJ claims to-people whohaveasbestos Afyina OrmaCatk&SaA, 'Noi^fiielbiigitesg&in^x&ezbonttfcsiiB'ihzi Crown Cod: & Sed dovs notand never Ins wa*> asbestos orusedas> bestoS iu its products. ft did, however, ia ISS acquire a fcoale cap company Thai bad aa asbestos division, bra wiftii SO days sold Offthst division ^lEBotdfc^cftohcxoeSfc Because of(bat and an investment ofabout S6 jpilBan, they now have paid aaalmost S300mlfia in cfaiins iaTexas abdhssspp(. What Hatlas dfitoetotbfecompanyjfedesstyedIs bcodianng. Its bond eating nowjttak-tatt bauds, jt is faav&g difScrity banxrwxig; money; and iha< bis anpaned on tbe comrpaay verf, very seven^. I dnnk hishspcrnmijfcatttetiytoprotectIHa- BtfgaoB whendaydo not evenhave ashestwis. Kotow ofihe cfajpanciaa beat found to be sjek<x have wbcstasfc, and fee departmateati*asos.Scv w&atwthnK toehoei tried to Emit tbe liability ofdie companyto fte azaooactbstit paid jKrfiest&eSSxyfiat irhougaii IS*and&atisabout S6 twmVi- Msdso ttesidau; ft doesnotmake anysenseto me tohave an SO^rawid ttt^gaot JoMSssassjyiv&o does noth*ue ad*sa>dtgetas awwdrtfSMjBinteiratnacttiysmythatdidiiot asbestos. Viet, 1 have retired cciipk in ay district who waked all Swsir1! rawda fana^tfteyhaveiwretired, day have done evayfcS^ ti&a. duy bene saved theiracoe% and neartheyare lootingat losing theirpension, andflay cma&y have looted aftAc geektheybecgbtfrtaB a company dagthey nnadred fcr all Acs tift gp from $45 to SSO & share dons to abort SIJO a shoe. ,ftzodlaessoseasen>s>e datIhavepeople wjboare55^ears of age wnddqg ht Bcmakat, FfcDsde^ina, WHba-Bacrt;* CcnseSsnO^ wateg zadgivaagnlotafAeir Rfeioftfe eeav paqr-id enow*wt sons sre-going tohave ajd6t w*eaa 55-ye3r-o]d litigant is Mms^I gets a S2S xtoSou awsoi. Whatwcareddagis tt23s&xn^zix^&TmAaxxsp^^sa tatkesbooks andcans topeopleisMjjsissifja sodTeas xvbo doarthiwea^>esoife. Vcr, Ihavettcotes-aAooe\pirkingfar a eorgiany who am weened about theirjrfcs, who are waived dnafteff mses, who sRsvcoied sBont theuze&eoKDta; and h30 me worriedahaottieirpea^os. Madam Ppsada^ I sA fcat^ws arJoptSenae BIDJJo. 216 nj& (ancDCb<i3t SatSe&storOntiputiotoit ib dieOmid& accpRtdesadE>xcadveyoBrdmlinosJeodla&&rfcfehfe^ bers* supportra&c issue. Xhe PRESIDING OfJKlER. The Cfeairrecognizes tbn gtnflev ausi Itgeb PtSadelpUa, ScatterStadu Senator STACK. MadamFteSdent. I abo e in Jtqjpattrf Senate Bill No. 216,1 rise today to tfcdBS legisfatSoa dratwill jbsve aa itzipcrtaiS impact on Feonqd*san poblic poficy. M jBteMbsztasxffJvahaKiMkiBttAlBmtenbeoarcetyt* hob roqgg laws do pot tmfanly expose mDOoewcomtaniatlo njin soklybecause cfajoergec. - bbxiowevMeiitSatatanMifatsocacaBsequepceofBigg- as Aar happened ia fhe past; Pmntyjvania axpaxatieo'fat ocvrAaagtKesyrodte^5ol4 or htftalW asbestos foodaefti nay beccBae srAjentozstetas^ehsed EahOStka. Saouari^fhr BmoiaS fassets 6oty ffwulabkto sansfyQjose adsestcraRbttd HstiKies Webecome onfiijy and rngnsQy cohsgodL Then is an anpiBccdeated BvaJaudhc cfzsbesteMcbied driarsafe in Ac United StaJcs todzy. WJnals been desejibedbytbe US. Sopusioe Cmm as aa ckjibaniine mess datethe caurr has caBed out frfj^islaavc tftodens. Ia vter of^Sds tdsaaricalbr nqEeo> iWrwl a rt n gnVftiin-ntj<I Wrrr^jm^TW*. ter fpubicpe>eyAs**be tnaof* ofassets radhhSe ao sadMQr 2sbc5U64e)ated cb&iE lc fia^y fimlted to fte wine ofsuztr <5f Ae pjwtoctinj^ wsctelhiioa ofasbcsaxL Warns aO hofc down *0 isreSy a fea offinoess. Hat S5AcgaalcfteleEi^anon,to>dMCTtittueaieaggeafftfcaqi far temsyivscij companies Hoe Groan Oodt 4k Sett. Hrr I bdteemaay ofyou ane fetoffiar wM fte prdHcjnsflatCnm* Cade. &. Sed is feeing, hwIwtetojrevS&nlriefsnininaqrfD putdmissoexotoperpectn*. CrownCork A Sal, roKdlVag^lraa&txctripapy datcroploys 14>OOPencsyhiaresiaeBts*aderwlribBoesdoeeoS| b2^oo to S>c Si22c economy, b teetoiqg e*> die bra& ofbaefc- rrygy.it a atdiispiedKaeoew^ in hagepan, becameqfan av. bndie cfssbestos-ittattd hwaats the eonyonySna^haadnii of^Sunissnufe ofbwsdb smoonsiB to fttadreds ofxrilSaaaaf dollars ia sh&as, Crown Code< Seal ftoes these famafs aid fek Are 7pmdil sfealioo deapitc Ac fcetfee eanyay ev>g gmnfitctmed^ settlor ii--1 lfn{|f~ vtntrn rnrininir^ *p-*w--a-d--ac^sotai^Aiuto|oduttfaAecxyM^*elOOyan The taigac *ftfc problem hegio rocoe 40yensagp bea Crow Cod:Jt S=4, * smwAanrofbotde aps xodbeverage and And cranatnoa^ wzs seeHngtO exptad its operatae. At part offlstt eSart, k acqmred a stockfaenai in h&Bdet Code Ceapaiy,gEPna6cC>ccrofcod:jiutJbgSfecaps>cflltM nuvt eorib; thal wtre first invented In tbe ISOQf bjr Crown Cofc* Se^fcandcnAaaaBdiviaaacfMidc^|woaiyCtowi iOToIvmenr.wxh conpsty,. had at ope tme Eawudndigad ^rV--ffvr 'V^twit.1 aemuwr* tadug ^erabogswee Amdc^bdcrtaiyCitowniivoivraaK wthh&nda. In tdiiidsvHhaitesVSf&siandssodIvUH was sold offto mother wJShb S3 days afCmwY&ot stodc fiaoest in Mnndet; acd 2`yenrs ItteAe remrindar ei Moodet -wasmagedioto Cum. Kow Crovmh veiy esfateoce is threatened, Ae tesolttfan aWtecSte oflaWStdC Agg&isrilie OQopvor Ibr aprodoet Aacr*< produced tjrsoli Ted^twt have* ebatetto icsteitfeirKssfir rjLmpmnyg Her. Ctowti Cart jb SeA 1SW m 1 11A1--* e feir and erpritaHft snhitiop. Onesectionof&exmetxirsexnEzo- il linbiSfy xabeiredsokly becaasa offcemeierliwtoftetotal 1232 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-- SENATE DECEMBER 11, value rffee assets offee tDO^compeBy 1jEu was actually fit the asbestos bosaea. Afid inan independent asdko, fee amendmesKjabots the asset* ofa PaasyJvaoia cccppianoe flat exceed that tocaZ value beyood fee naci ofctelmnts. Tbe srasnidnxa* K f^mfgiDv g Windfelf bn ektngmK, * feat ja destroying gnaopcot cgtporaSions and innocta woding pccplctjobs. Hie amendment to TSfle 35 feat will become Was part of Senator WMJGHL MadamPresident, fee legplstKnbdbtcaS today, Steals 18 No. 236, i$ legi^atiaa feat I soppacL I tiiO today to jest pAc a few rourmmt?: fee fee ircnrd co fee pnaposaL fihas obwittsljrbeeoiiert for tpat^tomcHae fetfaeOob* enJ Assemblyandban Bonified *s fee two qjeatorbefimBtf so etoquanflypainted cfl^aa toe Crown Cede it Seal VjrflntKM, X -wnold Hoe toi first of *U, jnst say torfee raced, aafac ao mistaks, Ihls legjsfatkm does aSset sane 150 to 200jot* 4<r Sensift B!S Kb. 2l is stfestaawdyfee same cs&e cmeadisaa to section 71tK ofTitle42 is Senate BUINo. BIS, withievfe;mf lc^sbtfve districtfearl n^presentlaHaOVa^feac is a Omm Code & Seal plant Bul-would UJsetojtBt^tofecWombcs* to certain tenns ccBjfefiB wife fee dsfnndefis isTide 15. briefiyfeat 1he is reallynote to this kpdMfcn feaojo& fee Now& 3 Jo-o-o-wman-y o f ajyctoO_ralgoes arc ckonc,e_rnt ed shoot jdhs feat we love beard about Befere yen stake yonr deecuq, please conddcrfee subject, andfeat snibjn* esbestas EtJeaSwu Us^es the bstoiy gad fitfage ofasbestro-icbaed pggation fa fee bearthe cost ofcornpenSEtlng fnvxiaals exposed W asbestos United Stato, *sbestB6 ejaina bsve been o5fig on ftrnew^ra \Ai*am *nvf *^TrUt-- --- sod sufferinghealth problems. Qwbi Co* & Seal k not one of filed eadi year by a. relatively snaaH Btanbar of''spccxa&xd,* those conzpenfa. Beyond fat feet, fears arc topically dans, if 9e, Wqwjtei law firms. It bas bea* nddflat fee adtestos tte* not hundred*, fifcompanies named m asbestos lawsuits.Doapt oeyt, as fe<y tit called, file <tefas utog a jboqpnaHpnadk ktwyoTOfe^yepty*aymgtblbcstpetple-iri*iictbecti*- Tfiismcfeodofitagfe^cbfenmtsfethatihyEegwBrypoedMB jpcasiaed.IfefeftfiSs dearfeywife Mere ja^todjy,fetyw31 naouftctBra ofasbesaos pitdooe or paroct enptnafionte be ccopessawl by fee companies feat actually tear ms nay hsw beat fee cause ofharm to Ae]rcSezts. JiUtec* eotat ijxnsS^Qc. odsEsbiSy(rllieig93nyisiet^CTag>ecitosesfe4io]n' I have also bean! asgtsmeug against fee hill feat sty fa will smt, fee faryet* sanpiy go afier the deepest psefats to safisQr only apply to Pamqdvania ciamaca. That is pl*m Wrong. Tins tbatjodgratg. bill a-fll a$$>ly to od-of-Statc donums in cuf-afiStare courts. I fT rrlTir jTirr_ll)r ffirfilrfruilmirpiiTu ifiu 11 iil^|iuiib^ Y^ in xbe case rfCrowo Cert: & Seal, claims egsiutttanndrf j toaAestos mmnfectoiog end instaBilieo bas Rally IczaistoUb* will tmifiane to le filed 3D oot-cf-Sbrie touttr, aid aA coun b>S. Carpeeafinas named as de&ndnteiafeeae smtsbmebam wiH use hs ttma Stale Kabflity lawto detonmne fee impact tfutf fining into budaiqfttK^sdbferity 'm>eaaoeeffeeU|g9B Mmdert products bid m damans. Ucmcvcx, each out-ofSoie fens; feeir pockets are feeasbestos attonnys foam court w have to lootto Fenugfenni* corponte lawto doer, their cScrts co firc next biggest,-andthen feeseaS^ Bad fees none fee extent uiaA Gown, a successor bymeija; is re* spoteSbkfarbfitndett EfaSgt exL R35gfat at wronft ttet feJost feeway d* pnin i Wrtgalwirt Rfcrw tOg*, 7* aafimal mwjmIwWA!. BenasybaniapufcficpaPcy Should nsate tea. domes&cnpo- dared or been involved ia bznbaplEgr Imw of iaacos &s Crown Code fe Seal fiat ttg^iaainetger do not tos-idafcsd cMmst. Amtmg feost enpooitioasfeatbM filleain hngfywa the cc^adefnilfifc.iajtBfifiaMe, and imprraVnwt jset fee past yesa ata* Onsets Comaoc Jafcwnieodt W. ft. fidufiy safety asaitsukcffet mopt. Grace Onpi$ Babcodc and \93oax Ctmtfmy, Amstremu 7tfct^e^ciQndpOTidesfTifriT>mTsfarsnjl^em7iT^ tKsid Industries, aodGrUolda^gs. Alloffeese cpa4ioa srodietirtet. SpcdBcalfolhb 1c%fe3sara statesfiatfee proriaoro bnw toogg bankrapacy ptotectien becaoaf ofEibiBlSei fim shall not applyto asaww* tmnpaits^ metocnfcaapasa&a claln^ fa ssbesros-wrisimTigproducts.featbQretcgyed eats benefits, collective bargaining agreement^ pr obEgadotrs sriribg decades ago. The far is, tzmefean40^000tobesam^dodcooi aider the HetwoaJ Labor AehtiodfAct These fnmctfoM, as tvdi as a sipafistoTmanber ofIteBs^dvaBiajebf fezs bin wiQ san, are wty nary laborunicos srn backing fels fcgjslaticii. ate ffled catStyasl 40,000 asbestosel^ed oss aro kdadi yeae. Even mote Starffi^ 1^508 umyaniee havebeen tonlate 3>shrafn< Kr^RTym m faa Even oAeanaWi: The Iptttanfftwt Association of MachnmtJ od Aerospace wiee fee mid-1970s, insnrance eapens befieve feat ddjBV w* Wcelaes, fee Teamsters, sad fee Seafarers Intenizlkcttl Union, eoofeaagto be filed onfl fee year 205CL^ftettfeetabfar ado- aswell a* ofeer localFemujdwmia micas, areall smartingHas totHetaed dsbns is ctpectedtolni S200 bCEaefacompeneafea hife lifeart aflHlfiat PctPSjdWtolaTt badness coiiftnffniyand faber tsaccac join togefeor in Snpport ofaa tone ^4, ^ ^ Jcnrtofiwbtid^ofdieCejinnonwcallhofPqsinyhwiiafiDr il> Whoj feeydp, 2 fesdtitk mportani to takenodee. fenyear*. _ Tudaat we havefee ewataniy m mao; Ayeegafarn^rcondoetodlyfefeJtondCwxHsatfaBblrrtltate TocaC in .tenns ofpeuo^ylviaii prfjficpoHcy. By vofe^ ^csl" fer CfvfiAcncsiwtEcisfearsffl offeetombing asfigtoantanB* ytm ea au* finf m jaaJorPcnijq^vatii* company Hx cb fcetwws >n be *den ban bax&aapttgr vrtibJn fie aoS2 yeotx Coded: Sed fatresied eqmniMjrand featjobs winbe ptottaai atom. Tbe stafy goes ontojnwJBet^feat nfeeathe eanpasSsfeo fccoisPetBityivanacicfeejjs aad&oiKes. aCKaHy cansedfee tom dl goimdecasbestos astotnytSb Tbanbjwt.Madam Presideat claims against a whole new Kst eftstgets, nyfadiBg oil refining Tbe PRESIDING OFnCK.Tbe Cbaa*teoogntesiiie gt-ntw. ,bnsinesscstjrfaaeg,enaanob3ewiwiificoiw3saBddtefattcro xasnfioat Yack, ScmatxTMtt^L ofTtttomoHles. KaailezaaDUficbnas, and otherttohtesies.LMsi- 2001 LEC1SIATIVE JOURNAL--SENATE 1233 fade or obgotoaty no irfcqinns&ip to Psbesto* r*-- ------------- I *sfc theMembersoffers bottyJnlfKiktoThdrcwaEraoiorial rKsmiefcTbirik *5>oa it Cmsider^feetheryon hrn*aconqig; a TTMTTpferiura; a rmiter, s refinery That amid be named ns a defendant h saasbestoM*Jsted cfeim sdaedme indie near fit- rare. According rnthe RaatJ Corporation srcdjl eytty Senate Member likely Ax=, sad i> iny case,I ported dUI rttBes; there are mar* than 150 anployres of ibe Crown CoA & Sea] Company is York County- I am deeply concerned about those vrerijers, and I am concerned abeni fit tutorsforfeisr families. I have received a number cfletters, jJicme caEs, and faxes from them over flit Isst several vrteks. J w>uM JJfcr io give you roe eCTirplfc. This one canstrtoentwrote tome -wife bispetspedSm. Hissentiments woe echoedtime cad time 255am at themessages Ireserved. Bert is -whatbe wreee ijamo, "The company Iwork fiar was io die wioag place st fee vaeeg date, they a* gettag bMiiiacdtOy^ttofctopaa/wccilqprfiaeag. ujxodncn ecrnjmny, ftoogji theynever evenproduced obeu^ tad xam we at* being poshed to thehank offinancial rain by fewsmts,* onqixvg. They ben families. .hemes, hopes fir die foam fearmay weDsfleoa fee passage oftbSs b3L Mateimiiiz5^MadTMncsal^lr5)pcrtSnujlcSinNB;> 216 fra lhejobs, the censrkwas feat1 havejnst alluded o,lnit any fegfelstim. & nrybook at least, feat m pass here ttafly has tel* fnMtaMnrtatyfi&aodfealMasxKitioi^ centratySeoa- I tor Stock. Setae* B3I No.216 is fain. I doribi tboa ftere is ntycat ' **> would Kaod op Ibis Srnzae finer toctey acd srgoc feat per- ovig -iffitrffjTwtfh yjhgcmb nr.aimT?gn^rrr 1 Senator EHQAtES. Madam Prcadai; fids snsndaiaX efiect atrijracoBfficoda or aay^Wsdt bug daimsl Senator TGMUNSON. MadamPfee^deat. jjo, it win not la 6a, as Senanr %ogIi and Sjaafcor Sbdc have stztod, it wB not afied those even rv53i asbestnsjs cfeims. so it will am aSect blade.Taap. Scnainr BHOAD3BS.Madam Preadeat, it efiectsno prtsao, do tbtsrc bbcfc long cImokT Seoamr TOMUNSOCN. No, Matoa Prrsideot SatatwliHOArffiS. bfcdam PreodtxH aadit fe not anoded g>3inntaaflna>d5tixns<g blade bang cfaSmsg Sosaot TOtoLEJSON. Madam ftmkat, dot is baejjt bx& limit Ay Senator RHOADES. Uiaakywi, Madam Prcsidot. POINT OF ORDER. TfcepKESZDSNG OPnCESLlbrChairxccneDizes tbepoo^ m ftaallribcMiplri^ Seaimar Stack. Senator SIAQC MadamEtcsidbi^Xiist a ad: tte Chdrftr a naEogunder Seuatr RideXX^ sexanm 2. As parawa a tm fem that represents CrtnmCork&Sed, fe; & Bfyrepdate figHK to vote on dw h3^ ordoodi I lecnsemfsdS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tbe Seeaccr Ins requested % ruling firm the C2jot asto 3xrfb*yMisrepaired to voae co the inotMo. Hie tSxs hs maribenSip in a tarfi dut involved fe fee tnattec. Tl* rales require d** a Meiaber not votkg Inwr a daretpcceBMayintae^mtbeqpnwpiecflhfeBatterbdbaefefe bodjjt.^Ttfe findfear as an attorney. Senate* Stock is atnoriberof ipjeay. Tbne is no one fa this Senate xIoj would say orenperofr. tkos icnt< doe ifyoa havefeatfypeofaJiinfiny Certain^ they should receive rorepemsatiao. They have bear harmed. they rsbocld be allowed *> go aflg &c cntnpaniBS feat tpanu&cnged and installed asbestos prodoeBatdbepezsnttrd to extracts fife; s Cirarncuno ofwnqpensafiou firthe harmdone to them, Madam President iSat fe exactlywhatfee legshtianbefore ib today dots- & does nefedag to atop a petsca suffixing from as sbcs3as4ebcedx^mytBnqsfier]heaaesi(h0are3eqpia>jblefarBHin^tiel>aa.71atlq^falia>itAp^aiBMM^<ha the fet ofpotential orpossible defimfemfr fa these towgrfw only itciufesfbe ones feat hm* actually done bam. Ibdzytbd list oT itetodgaainctodescoPi^ttrai5beadqB>ttoed&tPean<^vania, wife empkyera ijnysootodal dfetrfet fttsacotxpogr tbatJoerere^ipancfeiaaredarasaltedaog^esKgprodactio. aD Ae yearsofits <5>ertioe. Todayiris CrotmCojt&SeaLlf The Rand Corporation sa%isto bebeSeve^ mite act-roo-ds. taat&tmv feat bitlist ofuatted dffesdaab sod asbestcc^rlated dramsw3] pessb^y inijades eoepany in fbe soiaitnrial disbiet JtB^y^fopptvtoffeisJ^3shti3efefeevniinjg.T!BnJ:yDQ, Madam Presiten forthrthan. TbcPKESmUKj OFFICER. HeQan itwfi&x fa w iA. man fcOT Sdnry2kSD. SeruurKtaadei. c Senatcr JUIOAEES. Madam pjxSdettt^ u53 Seoalor TmaEtgtwarbtdtnrmtemjgatwa. SeiBrfarXO(MLINSQ)'t. Yes, bbxhm President. 8cfessadlas>atbest.IfanymeeiiTg^aafTnrgtpccasaaiyarBtsi and & b fee niB of*b Chairfeat yon are teqnatdto voteoBtbostftiaB. Senator STACK. Dock ytxr. Madam PresidcnL Atadfee^BfetWireacria^ WSB fee Senate agreeto feetporiotf? Tbeywndnaya^rm: njjaned ly Senator JlCOOLAaaid efrasfiDon^'*BB YEA-44 Amneoc So*efr Bcaczfa Codl Cota Sac Tmm Gwtaeh GeoW am Aps AbuW tndt TtMA lihfe tjnimwd Utm MCW Ua-wt- Ma Oftfee nae* Pac Rtate SoUao i SdkMBE Sod; Stem Hittm HboittaeB 'wtoger 'MAivComH 'wtfn^ABOMgrR Wauei* IMQK NAY*S One A cmitirotional aaj)crity>ofall fee Senators having voted **yc." fee tjnes&m t>asdaenoined a the Mffrrmn^y. . Ordered, TlatfeeSemtjaycffee Senate hrSjnn feeBee** of Seprescoativn accordiu^tjt. EXHIBIT i e> PRINTER'S NO. 223 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 216 "of INTRODUCED BY TARTAGLIONE, BELL, WAGNER, MELLOW, STOUT, MUSTO, O'PARE, 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 of1 SB 216 By Senators TARTAGLIONE, BELL, WAGNER, MELLOW, STOUT, MUSTO, O'PAKE, 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. 11, 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 i<< . - ,v> noAm mi n vmmvtnnm /n/ra/v>i a trr\4 ftl /lAMVYi srn i__ i HOUSE AMENDED PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 223 PRINTER'S NO. 1576 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 216 "of 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 Gccti-oB-1-;--Section 552 4 of Title- 42 of- t-he--PeBnoylvania < 8 Consolidated--St-atut-cp-io amcndcd-by adding--a--petr-ag-yaph" 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 ACTIONS INVOLVING 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 OP 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 OP 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 WARRANTS .--IN 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. 20010S0216B1576 4 1 *** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (C) COSTS IN DISTRICT JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS(1) COSTS COLLECTED BY A DISTRICT JUSTICE SHALL BE TRANSMITTED MONTHLY TO THE COMMONWEALTH IN AMOUNTS AS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (B) AND THE BALANCE SHALL BE TRANSMITTED MONTHLY TO THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT IS LOCATED. COSTS TRANSMITTED TO THE COMMONWEALTH SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE GENERAL FUND. COSTS TRANSMITTED TO THE COUNTY SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE COUNTY FOR ITS USE. (2) AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH: (I) SUMMARY CONVICTION, EXCEPT MOTOR VEHICLE CASES......................................................................................................... $10.00 (II) SUMMARY CONVICTION, MOTOR VEHICLE CASES OTHER THAN SUBPARAGRAPH(III)............................................................... $10.00 (III) SUMMARY CONVICTION, MOTOR VEHICLE CASES, HEARING DEMANDED............................................................................. $10.00 (IV) MISDEMEANOR................................................................. $13.00 (V) FELONY............................................................................... $20.00 : (VI) ASSUMPSIT ORTRESPASS INVOLVING: (A) $500 OR LESS.................................................... $12.50 (B) MORE THAN $500 BUT NOT MORE THAN $2,000............................................................................................ $20-00 (C) MORE THAN $2,000 BUT NOT MORE THAN $4,000.............................................................................. $30.00 (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. 3_9 * * * 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 ion-to rceover damages for- injury- to--a--pe-ree or for t-he--death--of -a--perDon--oouocd-bv- -fcho cxpoourc to CxIS" purooil 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 * 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 "f INTRODUCED BY TARTAGLIONE, BELL, WAGNER, MELLOW, STOUT, MUSTO, O'PARE, 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 Title 12--(Judic-iory-and- Judicial-Procedure-)-- of the 2 Pennoylvania Consolidated Ctatutoo,--further providing foy 3 cooto-;--for- -Geroinonwea lt-h portion--of fi-nea - and for--1-imit-af iono 4 of act-1 one-: 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 Gcotion 1.--Sections 3r?a-5-rl and 35?1 (oj--of -T-i-tle 42 of the <-- 14 Pennsylvania--Gonoolidatcd Statutes are "amended-to read? 15 S 172S-.S-:------COOt-fK 16 -{a)--Civil cnees.--Subject- to- oubooction----the goo to -to be 17 charged-by- di&tr-ict'-jeot-ieeo in every-civil cane-; except ao 18 othcrwioe -provided-in- thin section, ahall be ao -foIIowd ; 19 -fD--Actieno--:invo-l-ving- $509 or 20 ieee $30.00 21 42-)--Actien-o involving more -t-heai 1 $-500 but--net..more than $2-7-000................ ...................... --$4-0-=-00 2 -03--Aetiono -involving more than 3 $2, 000- but--not mor-e-t-han $1 ,-000 -- r-r..... .i-.-.. .-. $50.00 4 44-3--Aet-iono -involving more-fe-han 5 04,000-but-- not-more than $0,000............. .--$75.00 6 453-----Landlord' tenant acfc-i-ono involving 7 loa-o- than $2/000. .................. ........................... -- - - ------$4-5.00 8 453-----Landlord-tenant aetiono--lnvolving -mo-re 9 than $2,000' but not-morc than- $4,000-.-- .. . : .-t: $55.00 10 -f73---- Landlord tenant act long involving more- $ ,11 than-$4,000 but not-more-than 6 000............. $75.00 12 4-83-----Order-of- execution................... ... -a--$22.50 13 -fO-}-----Objection' to-lcvy-.-T-; . . r-. . -.-. --$l-0.00 14 -(1-93 Rcinot-otoroent--of complaint...........$ 5.00 15 Ouch co-oto ohall inelude all-chargoo except-the-cooto of a 16 diotrlct juotieeJ-o- tranocri.pt- of -every-proceeding on-appeal or 17 cc3ft->or-ar4--(including af-f-ida-vit--and cer-fedf-ioato) - which ohal-1-be 18 $2.50-per"-tranoer-ipt.--Said-cooto-shall- not include,- however---the 19 coot of pontage--and-regioterod mall which shall be-borne-by-the 20 plainti-ff-r 21 4 a- 1)-----Cuot-ody-eaeco:--Except -ao--provided- 1-fi-ooefc-ion 22 -1725 (cH2)-(v3--(relating to -eotabli-ohment- of fccc-and--ehargoo) 23 and subject -to ouboeotion (-f-H in-a custody-caoc>- the court of 24 common pleao shall/ -in addition-to -t-hc coat-'-provided-by-general 25 rul-OT--aoocoo- -a-coot of $5.00'T--Eighty- per-eent of tho-funds 26 generated -by-the..charge under t-hio ouboect-ion ohall- be 27 tranomltted -by thc--prothonotary -to the- Admin-introt-ive Office to 28 pay for - t-hc -implcment-ati-on -of oect-ion--1004--(-relating--to 29 aval 1 ab-i-l-it-y-o-f--er1mlnal charge -i-n-formati-on -in-child--cuotody 30 proecedi-ngg-K 20010S0216B1617 -2 - 1 4k}--Criminal -caoco ;--Subject -to oubgcction-(fthe--eoeto--feo2 be -charged-by--the- manor- j-udici ary' or by- the- cou-rt--of- common 3 plcao -whcre---apprepr-iatc in every criminal- oaocy cxeept--ao- 4 otherwise' provided- in-thio--section, ohall--be.as fol-l-owo-?- 5 43}--Summary-convict-ion;- ex-eopt-motor vehicle 6 caoco. ............... t. ............. - - . .--$28 .50 7 42}---- Summary--conviction, - motor- vehiclco caoea-r - 8 other than-paragraph--(3-H ............. ................. ................. --$22.50- 9 43}----- Summary- conviction, - motor vehicle- caooo- 10 hearing demanded. .. .;...........-- -- . - $27.50 11 44}--Mi-sdcmeanor-. --r-.-- .. ---r-... ..--$32.50 12 45} Felony . .. v.-. : ..................... - = ----$39 r-50 13 Such coot-e ohal-1-include all-chargeo--including-t-he -cooto of 14 giving a dioferiot- justice-1 a- tro-necript-to the--prosecutor or 15 defendant,--or-bot-h-r-if -rcqueotcd;-Such cooto ohall not- includo-r 16 however;--the- coot of pootage--and -regiot-e-red- maid, -which--ohall be 17 paid by the-defendant upon'conviction'; 18 4e}--Pnoloooif-icd-eoat-e or chargeo-;--Subj cot - t-o--aubocotion 19 (f) ; the-coot-o-to be oharged-by thc-mlnor-judiciary-in the 20 -following-instances not--readi-ly-claon4fiable-ohall be -ao 21 follows* 22 43}--Entering tranocript-- of judgment--from-anothcr 23 member- of thc-minor judiciary.-.- --$-5.00 24 45}--Marrying each couple, -making-record--thereof7 25 and- ecr-t-if-icat-e t-o-the part-leo. .-t --- ... $25.00 26 43}--Granting emergency relief purouant to-23 -Pa-C;C. 27 Ch. 61-(relating-to protection-from -abuoQ} v. vttt;-.-tt-. $10.00 28 44}--iDouing -a oearch warrant--(-except--ao- provided 29 in ouboccti-on--(dHnt .. . r. ...........-.-.-v-i.;. . $lQ.-QO 30 45}--Any--other -issuance- not otherwise provided for 20010S0216B1617 -3- 1 i-n- thdro aubacct-ie-n. --............--$10-. 09 2 -fd4----- Search- warrant-o---In every caee-whcrc-a--oearoh- warrant- 3 io--requested by a1 police offi-eerconstable or-otfecr pcaoo 4 officer cngag-ed-as- -guch-i-n-thc employ-' or-Dcrvi-ec -of--the 5 coirmrornrealth-er-any-of its politicalr--subdivisions, no-coot or 6 charge--shall -be- asoeosed-agai-not aueh officer-, the Commonwealth 7 or-poli-tical oubdivhaion--for -the i-ocuancc -of-oaeh-oea-rch 8 warrant-. 9 4e-)----- Fish and boating--offensoo^-- 10 43rJ--Except-ao-provided in paragraph --(-S)-, any pcr-oen 11 convicted -of- a summary- offence--under Title 30--(relating to 12 fish) -shall, in addition-to-the fine imposed-,--be--sentenced to 13 pay $i-6- ao--eosto of-the-issuing- authority which oests ohall 14 include alb-charges --including, -when-cal-l-od-fcr i--the costs-o# 15 pcatage-and- regiefeercd or- eert-i-fi-cd ma-il and- the-costo -of 16 g-iving-a--transcript -to- t-he-prosccutor-or defendant-;--or -both, 17 -i-f regaeotodv 18 424---Where the-poreon charged with a gummary-of-fonce 19 under-Title 30 demands-a-hearing - tho-cooto--ef-the ioouing 20 authority shall-be $15 --which-costs shall include all-chargee 21 including- the- charged specified- in- paragraph--(4)-- 22 -ff)--Annual--incrcaoc is- costa.--Beginning -on- January --1994-,- 23 and- each January 1--thereafter-/- the- coots--under--subsections--(a-)-r 24 (b) and (e)--shd-l-bc-inereaocd-by the percentage of--increaoe in 25 the- Consumer- Price Index -for Urban-Workere-for' -the immediate 26 preceding-calendar--year-wh-ich--ohall be publiohed in-the 27 Pennsylvania Bulletin-annually-by the- Supremo -Seurt--on oar--before 28 the-preceding November 30.-Th.io subsection shall expire January 29 1. rjooii-aoicK- 30 3571.--Commonwealth portion of- f-i-neo, -etc. 20010S0216B1617 -4- 2 4e9--Soot-o- i-n district juot-icc proceedings-:-- 3 449------Geofeo-eollcctod-by-a- district- justice oha-ll--be 4 tranamit ted-monthly to- the-eemmonwcn-lt-h -in--amounto--ao 5 proscribed-in subsection- (b)--and the balance- shall" be 6 transmitted-monthly to -the count-y in' which -thc-magiotcria-1 7 diotrlct-i-a-locotod.- gost-o-transroitt-cd to teho Cotrenonvealth 8 shall-bc-credited - to the General Fund. -Coots transmitted--to 9 the-county-ohall be-retained-by the count-y--for--its- use;- -10 -f29--Amounts payable to the Conwioiwealt-br 11 4*9--Summary conviction?--except motor-vehicle . .12 caoeo. ; 7 VT.i... ................;...............f............ --$10.00 13 4i-i)-----Summary conviction/--motor-vehicle oaqoo other 14 -than- subparagraph--(iii) ...... :--$3.-9100 15 4-H1-)-----Summary- convietion, motor-vehicle cqocd, 16 hearing -demanded.-;-..-: .. . ,-r. .. - . -t. -- . --$10.00 17 4-rv) Misdemeanor---................--$13-. 00 18 4v*9--Felony;-. .................................................... --$20-.-00 19 7 <vl)--Aaoumpoit or trespass -involving^- 20 4*9-----$500 or-lcoo-. --$12 . BO 21 49--More-than- $500-but- not more -than 22 $2,00-0 ____ ; . .-r.-rr.-; . . : . T -$20.00 23 49--More -than $27-000 but not- more 24 them--$4f 00-0 . . .-r. ............. . $30.00 25 4&9--More than $47-000-but not- more 26 than -$8-, 000.-.-.-............. .................................. $50.00 27 4va-i-9-----Landlord tenant- proceeding- -involving; 28 4*9-----$-2, 000 or lead . . -- . . . . ; .$20.00 29 4B9--Mor-e--t-han -$2, 000-but--not- more than 30 $4 ;-000 iT--. ; -. . 7 . ........................- - ..................... $25.00 20010S0216B1617 5 1 fG-5--Mor-e-than $4,006-bu-t-not more- than 2 $8, POD. i'. . ..... . $3-5:00.....................................................-riT, t 3 -fvi'1-i)----- Objection to levy;-.. . . t . . ; .--$ -5 ;-00 4 4i-x)--Qrdcr-of oaoctitien-r . r - $1-5 .-00 5 4*}-----issuing a' search- warrant--[except-as provided 6 -in--s-eot-ion 1125.1 (d)--(ro-lafe-ing to-cooto)-j-r:v . 7.00- 7 4*4)--Order - of popoopsion. --$15.00 8 44)----- In a 1-1 eaocg^wbcre-eo&to ar-c-bom-e by--the--county 9 pursuant-- to 3ect-ion--3r?25-. 2 -4rcl-c^log--to-asgufflpt-ion--of--summary 10 convi-eti-en-cooto-by- oounty) > no-o-har-c of -auch-oopto ohall be 11 payable -t-o--the Comnonwcalt-h t 12 4-4-)--Beginning -on-January -1,--1994-,--and-each-January 1 13 thereafter-;--the -coota under -paragraph- (-2)--shall--be--increaoed 14 by the pereent-age-o-f-incrcaoe -in-the Consumer--Bri-oo Index for 15 Urban "Workers- -or-t-he- immediate- preecding-eal-endar-year-which 16 ohall be -published- in the -Pcnn-Byl-van-ia Bulletin-annuaHy by 17 the Supreme-Sourt on or before the-preceding-November-BOr 18 -This-paragraph shall-erp-ire January--1;--[20034 --2010-r 19 * *-*' 20 Section-"3-^--Section- 5524- of Title 42- is amended-by--a-dding -a 21 paragraph to-read 22 S 5521;-----Two - year -1i-mi-t-at-ion - 23 The- following aeti-ono and proceedings.must-be--oenmenced 24 within -two--yearo-r 25 * -* - 26 -(8)---j^ action--to-roeover-damageo--for i-njury-to a person 27 or for-the deat-h-o-f-a person- caused--by the -exposure--to 28 asbestos- shall - -be- commcneod-with-in-t-wo- yoaro- from the dale 29 the-person wao-inf ormed- by-a licensed-physician--that -tfee 30 person - hao-an--aarjury which--io--caused- by-suoh- cnpooure-r 20010S0216B1617 6 1 (8)- An-e-et-d-on -t-o recover damageo-for-i-n^ury to a-pe-roont 2 or for-tho-dca4:-h-"Of- -a pcrooncaused fay--cxpoouro-fe-o-aobootog-r- 3 The time-wit bin whi-ch ouch-action muofa--be-eommencod ohal-l-fee 4 computed-from-fahc date-on which- the perooa--ia-inormed by-q 5 he alt-fa- oa-r-e-- practitioner--who-4 a- autbor-i-BOd t-epr-aot-i-ee -gome 6 component -o-f -the- hcafainq-orto -by-a--l-iccnoe,--permits 7 ccrtl-fi-catc-or--rcqlatrati-on -i-ssued--by--a Commonwealth 8 liocnoing-ogeney- or- board- or an- eqairvafa&nt agency--or- board in 9 another state that-tho-peroon hao-boon--in4ur&d by oaefa 10 expooure -or-frem-the date- on which--bhe-peroon--knew- -or in- the 11 cxcreipe-of- -roaoonefalo dil-igencc;--ao det-erminod-by-the--trier 12 of fact, ohoul-d-have known--fahat he -had-an-in-jury- whi-ch- wa-g 13 caupcd by -ouch--expo-oure -whi chcvcr- dat-e--oeouro- f-j-rofe-r- 14 Cootion- 3:--Thio a&t ahaM- take effect in-60 -dayo-.- 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 CORPORATION THAT 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 THEN HAVE THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING A 20 DIFFERENT FAIR MARKET VALUE 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 ALLLITIGATION, INCLUDING EXISTING 20 LITIGATION. AND SHALL APPLY TO SUCCESSORS OF A DOMESTIC 21 BUSINESS CORPORATION TOWHICH THISSECTIONAPPLIES. 22 {3) THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) 23 SHALL NOT APPLY TO WORKERS1 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 30 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 U.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 CLAIMS, 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 * * Hr 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