HOWARD v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.
31 A.3d 974 (2011)
Margaret HOWARD and Robert Howard, Co-Executors of the Pennsylvania Estate of John C. Ravert, Deceased, Appellants,
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Ace Hardware Corp., Monsey Products Corp., Pecora Corporation, and Union Carbide Corporation, Appellees.
No. 2978 EDA 2010.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued July 26, 2011.
Filed October 28, 2011.
Reargument Denied December 20, 2011.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, MUNDY, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
OPINION BY MUNDY, J.:
Appellants, Margaret Howard and Robert Howard, co-executors of the estate of John C. Ravert (Ravert), deceased, and plaintiffs in the underlying asbestos mass tort litigation, appeal from the judgment entered October 5, 2010, in favor of defendants/Appellees, A.W. Chesterton Co. (Chesterton), ACE Hardware Corp. (ACE), Monsey Products Corp. (Monsey), Pecora Corporation (Pecora), and Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide). Judgment, relative to Appellees, was entered after the trial court granted their
respective motions for summary judgment. We vacate the judgment, reverse the orders granting summary judgment in favor of each Appellee, and remand for further proceedings.
The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case as follows.
[Appellants] commenced this Asbestos Mass Tort action alleging that Decedent John C. Ravert contracted mesothelioma as a result of his occupational exposure to asbestos products. On March 25, 2008, ACE, Chesterton, Monsey, and Pecora filed for summary judgment. On March 27, 2008, Union Carbide filed for summary judgment. On April 11, 2008, [Appellants] filed a response to each of the motions. Pecora replied on April 13, 2008. ACE, Chesterton, and Monsey replied on April 16, 2008. Union Carbide replied on April 18, 2008. [Appellants'] counter replies were filed for Union Carbide on April 23, 2008; for Pecora on April 24, 2008; and for ACE, Chesterton, and Monsey on April 28, 2008. Replies to [Appellants'] counter replies were filed on April 28, 2008 by ACE (as a sur[-]reply); April 30, 2008 by Monsey; and May 6, 2008 by Chesterton. All of [Appellees'] motions asserted lack of sufficient product identification as required by Ekenrod [Eckenrod] v. GAF Corp. [375 Pa.Super. 187], 544 A.2d 50 (Pa.Super.1988) and its progeny.
After careful review of the motions, responses, replies, and sur-reply, [the trial c]ourt granted summary judgment in favor of each of the [Appellees] and dismissed with prejudice [Appellants'] claims on May 14, 2008. The case was then removed by remaining Defendants Weil McClain and Goodyear to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 20, 2008. On May 30, 2008, [Appellants] timely filed appeals from the orders granting summary judgment to [Appellees].
On July 1, 2008, in response to [the trial c]ourt's order, [Appellants] filed their Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. § 1925(b). [The trial c]ourt issued its Opinion [on] August 6, 2008.
On October 1, 2009, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that [Appellants'] appeal was interlocutory because there were still two remaining defendants in the case; therefore the order was not a final, appealable order. By Order dated November 12, 2009, the Honorable Eduardo Robreno remanded the case back to the trial court finding that the removal to federal court was improper because there were no grounds to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.