Case Name: Alfonce A. BARNISH and Billie M. Bozic, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI BUILDING COMPANY; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents; Sandy L. Bussard and Christine L. Bussard, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents; David A. Johnson and Stacey L. Johnson, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc. Respondents; Jody L. Covert, Executrix of the Estate of James C. Covert, Deceased, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents; Joyce Engelken, Executrix of the Estate of Gregg Engelken (a/k/a Gregory G.), Deceased and Joyce Engelken, Wife Individually, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2008-04-03
Citations: 596 Pa. 499
Docket Number: Appeal Nos. 56 WAL 2007, 57 WAL 2007, 58 WAL 2007, 59 WAL 2007, 60 WAL 2007
Parties: Alfonce A. BARNISH and Billie M. Bozic, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI BUILDING COMPANY; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents. Sandy L. Bussard and Christine L. Bussard, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents. David A. Johnson and Stacey L. Johnson, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc. Respondents. Jody L. Covert, Executrix of the Estate of James C. Covert, Deceased, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents. Joyce Engelken, Executrix of the Estate of Gregg Engelken (a/k/a Gregory G.), Deceased and Joyce Engelken, Wife Individually, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 596
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
946 A.2d 639
Alfonce A. BARNISH and Billie M. Bozic, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI BUILDING COMPANY; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents. Sandy L. Bussard and Christine L. Bussard, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents. David A. Johnson and Stacey L. Johnson, his Wife, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc. Respondents. Jody L. Covert, Executrix of the Estate of James C. Covert, Deceased, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents. Joyce Engelken, Executrix of the Estate of Gregg Engelken (a/k/a Gregory G.), Deceased and Joyce Engelken, Wife Individually, Petitioners v. KWI Building Company; United McGill Corporation; McGill Airclean Corporation; Fenwal Safety Systems, Inc.; and Grecon Electronics, Inc., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
April 3, 2008.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of April 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:
Did the Superior Court err in affirming the grant of summary judgment to Respondent? The parties are directed to address the effect of the continued successful use of a product on a plaintiffs ability to withstand summary judgment under the malfunction theory of strict product liability.