Court Opinion

ID: 9663058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:26:55.94588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:45.297888
License: Public Domain

J. R. Ernst, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur in the result reached by the majority on plaintiffs’ wrongful death actions for death resulting from asbestosis. I agree with the majority that "any right of action for asbestosis against these defendants arose presumably when the decedents knew or should have known of their disease”, and that the running of the periods of limitation during the lifetimes of plaintiffs’ decedents bars plaintiffs’ statutory right as personal representatives to sue for wrongful death attributable to asbestosis.
I must, however, respectfully dissent from the subsequent portion of the majority opinion which appears to suggest that, for latent disease cases, "the cause of action accrues” (and the period of limitation begins to run) "at the time of the wrongful act”.
Since this opinion does not control the disposition of this action, an exhaustive analysis and review of authorities does not appear to be warranted. However, suffice it to note that both the Supreme Court and this Court have recognized and applied a discovery rule of accrual where an element of the cause of action has occurred but cannot be pled in a proper complaint because it is not, with reasonable diligence, discoverable until some time after it has occurred. See, e.g., Parish v B F Goodrich Co, 395 Mich 271, 280; 235 NW2d 570 (1975); Williams v Polgar, 391 Mich 6, 24-25; 215 NW2d 149 (1974); Bonney v The Upjohn Co, 129 Mich App 18, 23-24; 342 NW2d 551 (1983); Filcek v Utica Building Co, 131 Mich App 396; 345 NW2d 707 (1984). As Justice Brennan pointedly *269observed in Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Equipment Repair & Service Co, 388 Mich 146, 151; 200 NW2d 70 (1972), running the period of limitation from the day the tortious force was put in motion would destroy plaintiffs’ cause of action before it even arose. I perceive no cogent reason for applying a different rule to the present plaintiffs, claiming recovery for latent occupational or industrial disease resulting from exposure to noxious substances, than the rule that has been applied in other consumer product liability cases. The postulation that the statute of limitations is a statute of repose "intended to protect industrial and commerical interests by fixing a certain limit upon exposure to liability for faulty products and workmanship” has been unequivocally rejected by the Supreme Court. Ruddy, supra, p 151. It should also be noted that the Legislature has recognized the discovery rule of accrual in actions for breach of warranty. Plaintiffs’ claims predicated on a theory of implied warranty are governed by MCL 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833, which provides that "the claim accrues at the time the breach of the warranty is discovered or reasonably should be discovered”. See Parish v B F Goodrich, supra, p 281; Williams v Polgar, supra, p 24, fn 16.
It is my opinion that the claims of plaintiffs Revard and Glazier for wrongful death due to bronchogenic carcinoma and mesothelioma, respectively, are timely. The trial court found that bronchogenic carcinoma and mesothelioma were not complications of the disease of asbestosis. Rather, they were separate and distinct diseases resulting from asbestos exposure. Despite this finding, the majority has concluded that the diagnosis of the disease asbestosis started the clock running as to all of plaintiffs’ claims for damages resulting from exposure to asbestos, including future cancer. This *270ignores the fact that during such time plaintiffs would have been unable to recover damages for future occurring asbestos-induced cancer, because such potential injury was at that time merely speculative and incapable of proof to a reasonable certainty.
In Wilson v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 221 US App DC 337; 684 F2d 111 (1982); Fearson v JohnsManville Sales Corp, 525 F Supp 671 (D DC, 1981); and Pierce v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 296 Md 656; 464 A2d 1020 (1983), the courts comprehensively addressed this issue and, in each case, concluded that a diagnosis of asbestosis did not start the running of the period of limitation on a plaintiffs right to sue for mesothelioma or bronchogenic carcinoma, attributable to the same asbestos exposure, but not manifest until after a claim for asbestosis had become barred. In Fearson, supra, the Court observed:
"The plaintiffs illustration of this point by way of a hypothetical clarifies this reasoning. Suppose an individual takes a drug which causes a skin rash which disappears in a few days and no legal action is brought because of the minimal harm caused. Years later, the individual discovers that he or she has cancer which resulted from use of the same product. Under defendant’s theory, the failure to sue for the skin rash would bar the suit for cancer.” 525 F Supp 674, fn 4.
See also Jackson v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 727 F2d 506 (CA 5, 1984).
In Funk v General Motors Corp, 392 Mich 91, 104; 220 NW2d 641 (1974), the Supreme Court stated that "[t]he policy behind the law of torts is more than compensation of victims. It seeks also to encourage implementation of reasonable safeguards against risks of injury.” The rule adopted by the majority does not advance either of these *271purposes. Absent a clear directive from the Legislature or the Supreme Court to the contrary, I believe this Court should adopt the analysis and conclusions reached in Wilson, supra; Fearson, supra; and Pierce, supra, and hold that, the earlier diagnosis of asbestosis notwithstanding, the period of limitation did not commence to run as to the cancer claims of Revard and Glazier until all elements necessary for a cause of action for such injury were present.