Pendzsu v. Beazer East, Inc.

Decision Date11 October 1996
Docket NumberDocket Nos. 181268,A-B,181271
Citation557 N.W.2d 127,219 Mich.App. 405
Parties, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,055 Arpad A. PENDZSU and Margiore Pendzsu, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BEAZER EAST, INC., a Delaware Corporation, in its own right and as successor in interest to Koppers Company, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, and Anchor Packing Company, a Delaware Corporation; Armstrong World Industries, Inc., as successor in interests to Armstrong Cork Company and Armstrong Contracting Supply (a/k/a A. C & S.), a Pennsylvania Corporation; Babcock & Wilcox Company, a Delaware Corporation; Brown Insulation Company, a Michigan Corporation; M.H. Detrick Company, a Delaware Corporation; Flexitallic Gasket Co., Inc., a Connecticut Corporation; GAF Corporation, in its own right and as successor in interest to the Ruberoid Company, a Delaware Corporation; Garlock, Inc., an Ohio Corporation; A.P. Green Refractories Company, a Delaware Corporation; Keene Corporation, in its own right and as successor in interest to Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc., Baldwin-Hill, Inc., and Mundet Cork Corporation, a New York Corporation; Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Owens-Illinois, Inc., an Ohio Corporation; Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation; W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn., in its own right and as successor to Zonolite Co., a Connecticut Corporation; Fibreboard Corp., in its own right and as successor to Pabco Co., a Delaware Corporation; National Gypsum Co., a Delaware Corporation; United States Gypsum Co., a Delaware Corporation; General Refractories, a Pennsylvania Corporation; Dresser Industries, a/k/a Harbison Walker Refractories, a Delaware Corporation; North American Refractories, an Ohio Corporation; Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., in its own right and as successor to Kaiser Refractories, a Division of Kaiser Aluminum, a Delaware Corporation; Quigley Company, Inc., a New York Corporation; Crown, Cork & Seal Company, Inc., in its own right and as successor in interest to Mundet Cork Corporation, a New York Corporati
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Zamler, Mellen & Shiffman, P.C. by Neil A. Kay and Daryl Royal, of Counsel, Dearborn, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Still, Nemier, Tolari & Landry, P.C. by Thomas S. McLeod and Michelle E. Mathieu, Farmington Hills, for defendant-appellee.

Before WAHLS, P.J., and MURPHY and C.D. CORWIN, * JJ.

WAHLS, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs' appeal as of right from the trial court's granting of defendant's motions for summary disposition in these asbestos-related actions. We affirm.

Plaintiff Arpad Pendzsu worked as a truck driver, cement mixer, and warehouse worker for Standard Fuel Engineering and Zero Refractories. During the course of his employment, he delivered materials and worked near projects at buildings owned by Ford Motor Company and National Steel Corporation, Great Lakes Division. Pendzsu alleges that his work required him to work in areas where asbestos-containing materials were used and that this exposed him to harmful asbestos fibers. Pendzsu was diagnosed with asbestosis on October 30, 1991.

Amon McGhee, Sr., worked as a laborer-maintenance at Great Lakes Steel from 1968 to 1990. During the course of his employment, McGhee worked near furnaces where asbestos-covered steam lines were located. He alleges that he was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers during procedures when the furnaces were rebuilt. He was diagnosed with lung cancer on April 7, 1990.

Defendant Beazer East, Inc. (hereinafter defendant), is the successor in interest to Koppers Company, Inc. In the early 1930s, Koppers Company was the contractor for the installation of two coke ovens at the Ford Rouge Plant. Koppers relined the Ford Rouge coke ovens in the 1960s and in 1979. In addition, Koppers performed relining and enlargement of blast furnaces and coke ovens at Great Lakes Steel in 1973.

On December 23, 1992, Pendzsu filed suit against defendant and forty-two other named defendants, claiming damages for products liability. On June 30, 1993, Amon McGhee, Jr., as personal representative of the estate of Amon McGhee, Sr., filed suit against defendant and twenty-seven other named defendants, claiming damages for products liability. On September 19, 1994, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), stating that plaintiffs' claims...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Pitsch v. ESE Michigan, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 2, 1999
    ...and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." [Pendzsu v. Beazer East, Inc., 219 Mich.App. 405, 410, 557 N.W.2d 127 (1996).] The test for an improvement is not whether the modification can be removed without damage to the land, but whe......
  • Poly-Flex Const., Inc. v. Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • October 6, 2008
    ...Ins. Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co. of Michigan, 231 Mich.App. 473, 586 N.W.2d 760, 762 (1998) (quoting Pendzsu v. Beazer East, Inc., 219 Mich.App. 405, 557 N.W.2d 127, 131 (1996))). Contrast Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. Rue Const. Co., Inc., 2005 WL 1186965, *2 (Mich.App. May 19, 2005) ......
  • Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • June 25, 2012
    ...643 A.2d 906, 918 (1994); Milligan v. Tibbetts Eng'g Corp., 391 Mass. 364, 461 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1984); Pendzsu v. Beazer East Inc., 219 Mich.App. 405, 557 N.W.2d 127, 131–32 (1996); State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Aquila Inc., 718 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Minn.2006); Ebert v. South Jersey Gas Co., 157 N.......
  • Citizens Ins. Co. v. Scholz
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • November 8, 2005
    ...may appear viable in theory, it is inconsistent with this Court's previous analyses and holdings. A In Pendzsu v. Beazer East, Inc., 219 Mich.App. 405, 411, 557 N.W.2d 127 (1996), this Court adopted a common-sense analysis used by other courts in construing the term "The issue is whether a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT