Court Opinion

ID: 9702973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:35:13.086332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:44.368451
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
LALLY-GREEN, J.:
¶ 11 join in the Majority’s opinion.
¶ 2 I understand and appreciate the position of our esteemed colleagues in the dissent. They astutely observe that “cancer-diagnosis” damages are distinct from “fear of future cancer” damages. Moreover, I have no quarrel with the current, “enlightened” approach set forth in Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 417 Pa.Super. 440, 612 A.2d 1021 (1992) (en banc).
¶3 Nevertheless, the record reflects that the plaintiffs in these particular cases knew, and more importantly, were bound by the pr e-Marinañ state of the law. In the pr e-Marinañ era, plaintiffs were required to file suit, within the applicable statute of limitations, against all potential asbestos defendants upon being diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, even if they had not yet developed cancer. The dissenting position, while appealing, would undermine the important goals of repose and finality in our judicial system, with regard to the plaintiffs and defendants in these cases. Thus, I join the Majority’s opinion.