were about four to six weeks each for all the different he wanted to go back and forth he worked on how many years he worked at this is how long did he work over all these many years at the state run power plant which is in remember the guard house is in illinois what is in illinois the guard house the place where the deliveries are made and under that indiana products liability law statute of repose that's based on the side of the delivery so if you're looking at that statute that delivery is in illinois what is what is the last event necessary to make someone live all and not occur and and  end the last event in asbestos cases is the injury producing event which is the exposure and there's a few reasons why that's significant but is there any indiana case it says there's no there's no indiana law that says where the last event occurs in an asbestos case no there's no no decision but there are there are important thing here is that when you talk about an asbestos case the disease has a long latency process where you've got your exposure any injury is progressive and that's occurring over time so when you get down to the question of the indiana statute which focuses on when the disease manifests or is diagnosed basically it's a question then becomes if you worked all your life in the state of illinois and you retired in florida then just by the lack of a draw you would end up having florida be the place if this isn't necessarily  of the draw this is a person who lived in indiana was diagnosed with ms really oma in indiana he he one of the plants he worked in the state line plant was in indiana much of the many years he wrote yes he worked at two out of three plants in illinois but how long was he exposed illinois possibly to think it's important which is which is a person could under the scenario that you're not basing this on places of exposure go forum shopping in asbestos cases and get it get their diagnosis a particular state that had more favorable law i mean that could well be done because people start feeling the signs and symptoms but they don't get a diagnosis from the doctor in this routinely happens with our clients people know they got these guys who work in the trade they know what they got and they they could go to another state and get your diagnosis or go live there and they could go to a place that's more favorable that's what i mean about the importance of the latency period here and right judge  which is making this work westinghouse is is only selling the services are of taking apart and putting back together the turban so that's that service oriented work and that's not barred under tens twenty thirty forty fifty million dollars even back in those days and you have you don't have in for six weeks shut down time to do anything other than just get it  happen if the insulation materials some of those might have to have been replaced before seventy three ok for the most part the record shows they just used and put back on what they took off as far as but there might have been a few pieces of the bra that got torn apart when they're taking proper turban so those would have to be replaced and god is right that before seventy three according to western houses or witnessed the replace insulation material had to be s testis so they would have been putting back on as best as materials but again that's they're not improving the turban they're just putting back on what was already there before so did he tell us gives a little more detail about the switchgear what was i wish i was young enough to be alive  running at four hundred forty year high voltage in the settings and so you have to stay with what was originally built in what you've got is a set up where it's primarily a steel sh l which is inside of the cabinet that's close it's closed to protect everybody from what goes on inside the switch gear and what happens is these are what tricity is flowing through there and as we all know every once in a while  anyway there about one twenty one twenty one thirty one twenty nine one thirty one thirty one these are the specification cards that westinghouse uses that make sure these are constructed out of asbestos so within that structure you so so that's these are all normal operations i think that's what's critical here these are normal operations and there's nothing in the evidence to show that these powerhouses mr burns or the switch gears behave any orating purposes or for maintenance projects and when you add up these normal operations to the findings that judge are being already provided about asbestos content and the use of these westinghouse products the combination of these things should have read to summary judgement being denied and that's basically the point of this deal as normal operating maintenance of this  because it was not no appeal was taken on our believe that motion was at least ruled on in the preliminary way but our position remains the same on that that that should have been the subject of a cross appeal because it has nothing to do with with separate separate issues that were raised concerning exposures to s tests  law question is properly before the order not it is there was no need for across appeal of a summary judgment that was awarded to me as the winner there was nothing for me to cross the bill and i'm not seeking any greater relief from this work than i received from the district co summary judgment in my favor and under those facts as we discussed in our response that motion to strike third circuit authority it's clear that there is no across the pill needed for me to assert the choice of law question as a right for any reason grounds for  g getting to the substance of the choice of wall indiana law is clear that the place of exposure has absolutely nothing to do with determining the lex loci the only thing that herman selects loci is the last necessary for liability and that's important because as we sayd in our brief under both the allied signal vs case from the indiana supreme court and the jury each person is john crane case from the indiana court of appeals there is no actionable claim for us bestest exposure until the physical harm manifests itself and is diagnosed as a physical injury you can have as much as best as exposure as possible you still have no circumstances the use the term of the court that the let's look at the has no significance no connection other than that to the litigation and then we get to the forum shopping question that mr mccoy brought up everything about this case that happened to illinois mr franken berger had developed some kind of set them that he thought might make him able to follow in this mess this plane landed in vienna and got diagnosed there because he thought the law was more favorable that would be a different situation than the one we have here where mr and mrs rankin burger at the time of diagnosis were indiana residents where they chose to file their case in indiana or world where we have some amount of the exposure so the only exposures at issue are not just the westinghouse exposures it would be the exposures of the case of the whole because the indiana vs illinois law all decision would not be a westinghouse specific decision and in this case we have a three page listing of job sites meaning here in indiana many are in illinois that date so died at birth and frankly i believe that's why the indiana courts decided that the side of exposure would be a completely unworkable solution for fixing the the closest that i could point to that i think comes close to that would be a decision that we discussed in our brief that is not in this mess this case and it but i believe that from a working standpoint it is analogous and it's the a she then gets back in her car drives back across the indiana state line and is in a fatal car accident in indiana all of the exposure all of the contact with the defendant all of the tortious kind the young lady then crossed the state line where her injury occurs and the shock or unequivocally hill that the sight of the wreck the side of the death was the let's learn not the site where she had been sold the alcohol or consume the alcohol and this is the quote from shots from a sixty three north the second at four thirty one quote where the issue is the choice between the wall of the place where an injury or an allegedly wrongful act or a mission to place and the law of the place where physical injury was inflicted the general rule is that the place of the to work is the place where the injury or death was inflicted and not the place where the allegedly wrongful act or admission to place and i believe even though that's not an ist best a specific case that exact same legal principle controls here and as i said earlier is that does a mere presumption yes but the indiana course have said that that presumption cannot be overridden if the lace no counter wise has some significant connection to the work here it does has the residence of both plaintiff and that is the that has the side of at least some of the exposure as the site where this improvement at least one of the improvements to real property was located he operated out of the union in chicago conceivably one could overcome that presumption could enter i would make two points to temper the first one is i think there's actually three steps the first is that to identify the let's look at the second is to see in isolation does the let's look i have a significant and action to the suit and only if the answer to that question is no do you go to the third step was to look to see what other state may have more or different connections so i don't think you can get into the union hall though and i threw a few it was you could have more connection with illinois but no less we have significant connection in indiana you still would that is absolutely correct when but here but if you could show that there was quite a little connection in india and other the fact that's where he was diagnosed they had to work a little bit of time in the plant but much more of his time on the right plants in other places the theoretical you could overcome that presumption and the case we have here where we have indiana residents indiana exposure indiana diagnosis indiana medical treatment this is research  industry that he worked in the us best this inflation on piping the fire pretty i have no doubt that he was exposed to his best question would be whether he was exposed cause or billy or causation relationship to westinghouse at best but we can write  basically say you have insulation in the switch here and you have metal struck there's dust coming from the switch your it must come from the insulation assuming that to be true if you look at the supplemental appendix that provided by westinghouse in relation to our brief page fifty three of ones them in the three at page ninety seven at page seventy three those are the three spots there's a clear discussion of which parts of the art shoot are subject to disintegration under these normal operating procedures that limit the strides the only testimony in the record of the relative effect of those impulses of electricity is that the is the best as containing parts of the insulation or unaffected and that it's the ceramic or porcelain parts that crack break in the senate race so that even if this was in its best this containing switchgear even if it had an  best as containing arc shoot you would still not be having you still would not have the evidence in the record that would make it other than conjecture or speculation for a jury to assume that the dust came from and as best as containing part of i don't believe there was any contrary evidence to the relative quantity of his nests in the switch how much the specialises in the switchgear i gave the exact percentage in our brief and i've never been good at math i think it's point twenty six of one percent by way we're specific components broke down under normal use in operation and created dust i might agree with you fact that would be closer to the situation if this were had i think in july in the high scase where there was evidence that under normal operating that could really get into the air pretty quickly if the fact it could be shown that there was a lot of or with the course of time just particular person was involved in the cleaning switchgear certainly i agree with that as well if there was evidence that the best components had broken down and the only question in this case was was there enough exposure best course to sound like a jury question here the undisputed evidence shows that the as best as containing products themselves as opposed to the porcelain or ceramic insulation the same thing but we don't get that far but there's no way around the product liability statute of repose relative to the switch here there's no post construction work as to our post delivery work by westinghouse to the switch here which  arising from westinghouse his original design or construction of the turbine that he could still proceed on a claim arising from westinghouse this president steering overhauls of the turban after construction because that's not a new construction of a new improvement and again i think i would agree with mr mccoy that if there was evidence that westinghouse came in as part of these turban repairs and that westinghouse did insulation work  exposed mr franken berger to his best to separate and above what had happened in the first place there might be a problem from a planet but the undisputed evidence in this case is again that while westinghouse engine near with his hard hat was present did westinghouse do anything by standing they are that exposed mr franken but it was best as the answer is we didn't the undisputed evidence in the record is that westinghouse is presence during the turban overhaul did not extend to any contact with the activities of removing or replacing insulation and you can find that that supplemental appendix attached to i briefed pages eighty five and ninety six the ninety seven the only testimony we have in the record with regard to that is from mr way or and mr ware testified that when we had a technical adviser present for a probe an overhaul they were never involved in the removal or placement of the insulation so nothing place of residence at the time or exposure ok these crews are arch crews you might have ten people from illinois working on net turban who wrote who reside in illinois you might have twenty people arrest bestest science of asbestos so but let's assume the presumption applies when you get to the question of what's the connection well you know if it's the connection is being asserted because of residents like i say it could be ten members of that of that pipe fitter crew come from illinois and it could be ten members that come from indiana and there could be ten members that are visiting from wisconsin the next group that would mean you got three different standards of care for things the warnings and safety measures and procedures in the course of a very very sophisticated piece of work where you've got a lot of potential exposures not just frest s just people falling off letters and all kinds of other standards it doesn't make sense to say that a connection exists because a residence because you would have people on the same work site being subject to different standards of care based on residence not based on the person supervising and the duties that need to be followed for that particular job the other thing is that you might say the place of connection is based on place of diagnosis well or the connections based on place of diagnosis again that doesn't make sense because you don't even know what that where that person's diagnosis is until it gets made due to the latency period ten twenty thirty years later or more so with the person who florida to know the standard of care for these important safety issues at the time that the job is ongoing if that's the if that's the basis for the connection i can't have it based on something that you don't even know to be the push of the law or what law will govern when you're doing this kind of sophisticated work so once again it doesn't make any sense to say that you got to wait and you don't even know your standard of the clickable care until you know where you end up getting a diagnosis that's the whole point of the reasoning that any is is a is following based on his knowledge of asbestos the only place that makes sense or in these large types of jobs for the last event analysis were rather substantial connection either way is the place where the job was actually ongoing and yes worse that's what judge for being found in this particular case so under either scenario whether you follow the question what do you follow the place of the last event and that's where the exposure occurs or would you follow the place of the presumption and say you need to have a connection you don't have a connection and you need either scenario illinois law should consistently govern work at the job