Kullman v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., OWENS-CORNING
Decision Date | 17 October 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-1726,OWENS-CORNING,90-1726 |
Citation | 943 F.2d 613 |
Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,959 Leroy KULLMAN; Nancy Kullman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.FIBERGLAS CORPORATION; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
William L. Martens (briefed), Nancy Caine Harbour (argued), Miller, Cohen, Martens & Ice, Southfield, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Susan Healy Zitterman (argued and briefed), Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney, Ronald E. Westen, Xhafer Orhan, Butzel, Long, Gust, Klein & Van Zile, Thomas G. Parachini, W. Mack Faison (argued and briefed), James D. Robb, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, James J. Hayes, Jr., Mark C. Smiley, Garan, Lucow, Miller, Seward, Cooper & Becker, Detroit, Mich., Clayton F. Farrell, Collins, Einhorn & Farrell, Southfield, Mich., for defendants-appellees.
Before KRUPANSKY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and BERTELSMAN, District Judge. *
In this appeal, we must apply the law of Michigan concerning the discovery rule for applying the statute of limitations in products liability actions. Plaintiff, who suffers from asbestosis, sued a number of manufacturers of products to which he was exposed at work. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on statute of limitations grounds. Finding the law of Michigan to be quite strict on this issue, we affirm.
The basic facts were succinctly stated by Judge Feikens, the trial judge, as follows:
Michigan applies the discovery rule in resolving products liability statute of limitations issues. Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 427 Mich. 301, 399 N.W.2d 1 (1987). In Stinnett v. Tool Chemical Company, Inc., 161 Mich.App. 467, 411 N.W.2d 740 (1987), the court, applying Larson, supra, held an action barred because the statute of limitations had begun to run when "plaintiff knew that he had a lung problem and he believed that the problem was caused by the chemicals he had been exposed to at work." 411 N.W.2d at 743. The opinion made clear that the court was holding that the statute had run as to the manufacturers of all chemicals the plaintiff had been exposed to at work.
Factually, the decision in this case turns on the plaintiff's deposition. We have carefully read the 169-page transcript. Although for most of the deposition the plaintiff evaded the cross-examiner's efforts to pin down the date he knew he had been exposed to harmful asbestos dust, the following testimony finally ensued:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moll v. Abbott Laboratories
...Bowen facts reveals a standard more analogous to Michigan's "possible cause of action" standard.30 See also Kullman v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 943 F.2d 613, 616 (CA 6, 1991) (the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in construing Michigan law, held that a plaintiff's......
-
Childs v. Haussecker
...can accrue. See, e.g., Welch v. Celotex Corp., 951 F.2d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir.1992) (applying Georgia law); Kullman v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 943 F.2d 613, 616 (6th Cir.1991) (applying Michigan law); Joseph v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 671 F.Supp. 1043, 1048 (D.Vi.1987); Hutson,......
-
Mascarenas v. Union Carbide Corp.
...or should have discovered, his claim. Moss v. Pacquing, 183 Mich.App. 574, 581, 455 N.W.2d 339 (1990); Kullman v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp, 943 F.2d 613, 616 (CA 6, 1991). This case is distinguishable from Bonney, Cullender , andMoss, supra. Medical examinations in 1986 revealed that pl......
- Geenen v. Salazar