Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    December 01, 1999

    Wisconsin Lawyer December 1999: Supreme Court Digest

    Supreme Court Digest


    By Prof. Daniel D. Blinka & Prof. Thomas J. Hammer


    Torts

    Statute of Limitations - Discovery Rule - Asbestos Cases -
    Claims Preclusion

    Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., No. 98-1343 (filed 27 Oct. 1999)

    In March 1987 the Sophas filed a complaint seeking damages for injuries the husband suffered to his lungs as a result of asbestos exposure. The action was dismissed on the merits and with prejudice. In March 1997 the plaintiffs filed another complaint based on a diagnosis that the husband had mesothelioma. The circuit court found that mesothelioma was distinct from the asbestos-related injuries alleged in the 1987 complaint, but it dismissed the 1997 action because it was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appealed and the court of appeals certified the case to the supreme court.

    The supreme court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Abrahamson, reversed and remanded. The court faced two issues. First, did the 1987 diagnosis of a nonmalignant asbestos-related condition (pleural thickening or asbestosis) trigger the statute of limitations for any and all injuries occurring because of asbestos exposure, or did a later diagnosis of "a distinct and later manifested malignant asbestos-related condition (here mesothelioma) trigger a new statute of limitations on the distinct and later manifested condition?" Second, did the doctrine of claims preclusion bar the plaintiffs' 1997 complaint?

    The court held that "a person who brings an action based on a diagnosis of a nonmalignant asbestos-related condition may bring a subsequent action upon a later diagnosis of a distinct malignant asbestos-related condition. The diagnosis of a malignant asbestos-related condition creates a new cause of action and the statute of limitations governing the malignant asbestos-related condition begins when the claimant discovers, or with reasonable diligence should discover, the malignant asbestos-related condition." A contrary ruling would force plaintiffs to bring premature claims for fear that if their conditions worsen, they will be foreclosed from filing suit. The holding brings Wisconsin into conformity with the majority of other jurisdictions. The court also was persuaded that this case "presents a special circumstance in which claim preclusion should not apply."

    Prof. Daniel D. Blinka and Prof. Thomas J. Hammer invite comments and questions about the digests. They can be reached at the Marquette University Law School, 1103 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53233, (414) 288-7090.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY