Skip to content

News & Knowledge

Pennsylvania’s “Roverano” Asbestos Ruling Ignores Science and Hurts Defendants


Pennsylvania’s “Roverano” Asbestos Ruling Ignores Science and Hurts Defendants

April 1, 2020

In its 39-page opinion in Roverano v. Crane, Inc., delivered February 19, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed a jury’s apportionment of liability on a percentage basis in strict liability asbestos cases and the inclusion of bankrupt entities on the verdict sheet, with important implications for the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act and bankrupt entities involved in litigation.

Goldberg Segalla’s Gregory M. McNamee and Erin Miter Scanlon, members of the firm’s Toxic Tort practice based in the Philadelphia office, analyze the ruling in an article for Law360.

The ruling, they explain, held that “Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act requires liability to be apportioned equally among strictly liable joint tortfeasors (i.e., on a per capita basis), and that the act permits the inclusion of bankrupt entities on the verdict sheet—assuming appropriate requests and proofs are made—if the bankrupt entity was either joined as a defendant or has entered into a release with the plaintiff.”

“The Roverano decision has greatly disturbed how asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania operates, and the effects will be significant for both plaintiffs and the defense,” Greg and Erin write. “Since the passage of the Fair Share Act—with its clear language as to ‘including actions for strict liability’—all defendants in asbestos litigation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have focused on their apportioned liability. As noted above, this decision now protects a defendant who should bear most of the liability at the expense of the minimally identified defendant, whose mention barely satisfies the prima facie proof requirements.”

They also add that the decision “ appears to point to an abrogation of the rule against ‘each and every fiber’ as a theory of causation. In claiming that asbestos diseases are incapable of apportionment, the majority ignores the science of dose; the body’s defense mechanisms; fiber type; a myriad of medical and scientific studies; and most importantly, the role of juries in these and other cases. For defendants, this decision is unfortunate, unsettling and an undoing of a fairer, common-sense approach.”

Read the full article:


For years, the attorneys at Goldberg Segalla have committed their time and talents to turning the tide of toxic tort litigation. Case by case and client by client, in local and individual matters and in mass tort litigation, we have won trials and appeals and shaped case law around the country. Our Toxic Tort practice—over 50 exceptional attorneys nationwide—includes veteran toxic tort litigators, nationally recognized rising stars, and thought leaders with deep backgrounds in emerging toxic tort trends. With the ability to defend cases and advise clients across our national footprint, we’ve built a reputation for precedent-setting victories over aggressive plaintiff lawyers in some of the country’s toughest judicial jurisdictions—but also for developing cost-effective litigation management strategies to meet each client’s goals.