# Samarin v. GAF Corp.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 28, 1989 · 391 Pa. Super. 340

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700794

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorothy SAMARIN, Executrix of the Estate of Jack G. Samarin, Deceased and Dorothy Samarin, in Her Own Right, Appellant, v. GAF CORPORATION; Raymark Industries, Inc.; Celotex Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to Philip Carey Manufacturing Company; Philip Carey Corporation; Briggs Manufacturing Company and/or Panacon Corporation; Keene Building Products Corporation; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; A-Best Products Company; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Nicolet Industries, Inc.; Successor-In-Interest to Keasby & Mattison; H.K. Porter Company, Inc.; Successor-In-Interest to Southern Textile Company, Formerly Southern Asbestos Company; Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Company; Gateway Industrial Supply and Abex Corporation, Appellees; Robert L. CARTWRIGHT and Arglye Cartwright, His Wife, Appellants, v. GAF CORPORATION; Raymark Industries, Inc.; Celotex Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to Philip Carey Manufacturing Company; Philip Carey Corporation; Briggs Manufacturing Company and/or Panacon Corporation; Keene Building Products Corporation; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; A-Best Products Company; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Nicolet Industries, Inc.; Successor-In-Interest to Keasby & Mattison; H.K. Porter Company, Inc.; Successor-In-Interest to Southern Textile Company, Formerly Southern Asbestos Company; Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Company; Gateway Industrial Supply and Abex Corporation, Appellees; Marcia BYERS, D.B.N., C.T.A., Administratrix of the Estate of Early Byers, Deceased and John E. Byers, Marcia E. Byers, and Mark A. Byers, Executors of the Estate of Mary Byers, Deceased, Appellants, v. GAF CORPORATION in Its Own Right as Successor-In-Interest to the Ruberoid Company; Raymark Industries, Inc., in Its Own Right and Successor-In-Right to Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.; Celotex Corporation in Its Own Right and Successor-In-Interest to the Philip Carey Manufacturing Company; Philip Carey Corporation; Briggs Manufacturing Company and/or Panacon Corporation; Keene Corporation in Its Own Right and as Successor-In-Interest to Baldwin Hill Co.; Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc.; Ehret Magnesia Manufacturing Company and to the Insulation Division of Mundet Cork Company, to Mundet Company and to Keene Building Products Corporation Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; A-Best Products Company; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation; Armstrong World Industries, Inc., in Its Own Right and as Successor-In-Interest to Armstrong Cork Co., and Armstrong Contracting and Supply Co.; Nicolet Industries, Inc., in Its Own Right and Successor-In-Interest to Keasby & Mattison, Co.; H.K. Porter Company, Inc., in Its Own Right as Successor-In-Interest to Southern Textile Company, Formerly Southern Asbestos Company; The Gage Company, Formerly Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Company; Gateway Industrial Supply and Abex Corporation, Friction Products Division, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 28, 1989
- **Citations:** 391 Pa. Super. 340; 571 A.2d 398; 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3112
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rowley
- **Judges:** Rowley, Beck, Montgomery
- **Cited by:** 51 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/9700794

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming summary judgment when evidence showed that the plaintiff was exposed to an asbestos cloth, but the plaintiff could not identify the brand and there were multiple suppliers
- affirming entry of summary judgment against plaintiffs where evidence adduced in discovery failed to demonstrate proximity, frequency and identity of products to which plaintiffs were exposed

## Opinion text

ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in all but two provisions of the majority’s thorough and well-reasoned Opinion. The first statement in which I do not join appears in footnote 6 (majority op. at 360), where the majority, after noting that “we do not follow the trial *363 courts’ apparent rulings” concerning the admissibility of the testimony of tradesmen, proceeds to enumerate the circumstances under which “we would find the evidence sufficient____” The second statement is the observation that while Owens-Corning’s claim for attorney’s fees has been prematurely raised, “we would be disinclined to grant an award for attorney’s fees or costs against appellants” (majority op. at 362). As we are not required to resolve either of these issues at this point, I would postpone their resolution until such time as they are properly before this Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700794. Public record. Not legal advice.