# Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 21, 2012 · 614 Pa. 335

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965410

## Case

- **Full name:** Herbert L. DALEY and Evelyn Daley, H/W v. A.W. CHESTERTON, INC. and U.S. Supply Company and Duro-Dyne Corporation. Appeal of U.S. Supply Company and Duro-Dyne Corporation
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 21, 2012
- **Citations:** 614 Pa. 335; 37 A.3d 1175; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 352; 2012 WL 540573
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin
- **Judges:** Baer, Castile, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965410

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding plaintiff may file second or subsequent action for asbestos-related disease, as long as that action “is based on a separate and distinct [asbestos-related] disease which was not known to plaintiff at the time of his first action, and is filed within the applicable stat…

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I join the Majority’s holding that the separate disease rule permits a plaintiff to file an action for a malignant asbestos-related disease, even if he previously filed an action for a different malignant asbestos-related disease, provided the second action is based on a separate, distinct disease not known to the plaintiff at the time of the first action. I write separately to express my view that the damages recoverable in the second action for the second malignant disease must also be separate and distinct from those recovered in the first action. While two lawsuits are permitted under the rule, two recoveries for identical damage resulting from each disease are not. A plaintiff must be able to *1191 establish the second disease caused damage that is distinct from that which was alleged in the first action. A second lawsuit cannot be used as a vehicle to recover damages he may have been unable to prove in the first one.
In all other respects, I join the Majority’s decision.
Justice BAER joins this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965410. Public record. Not legal advice.