Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 77, 111 S.Ct. at 1704. Thus, in diversity cases, whether a state-law cause of action exists at all is a jurisdictional issue insofar as it relates to standing and injury-in-fact, not an issue of whether a claim for relief has been stated. 74 .Despite this unambiguous holding, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has allowed plaintiffs to recover medical monitoring costs for exposure to asbestos. See Simmons, 674 A.2d at 239-40. The court stated that such costs were properly awarded for meritorious exposure-only cases but that damages for increased risk a , 192 (Ky.1994) (requiring manifestation of asbestos-caused injuiy before recognizing existence of cause of action for negligence based on exposure to asbestos); Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 427 Mich. 301, 399 N.W.2d 1, 2 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp., 221 Va. 951, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing in a latent disease case that an injured persons cause of action accrues either 1 (B) holding that cause of action for asbestosis accrues upon discovery of disease not at time of exposure to asbestos (C) recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach (D) holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach (E) holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs
Output (English): recognizing in a latent disease case that an injured persons cause of action accrues either 1