This case is about second-hand exposure to asbestos under Pennsylvania law. A federal district court judge properly ruled that a company has no duty to protect family members of independent contractors against off-site exposure to asbestos. There have been several recent cases involving this issue, and the NAM's amicus brief urges the Third Circuit to join most of them in finding no duty by the company. The NAM joined five other organizations warning that expanding such a duty would lead to a new wave of asbestos litigation. The employer owes a duty of safety in the workplace, but not to distant third-parties whose potential claims are so remote.
On July 11, 2008, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, but did not reach the question of liability for third-party exposure. Instead, it ruled that the complaint, filed 12 years earlier and never amended, did not raise a premises liability or failure-to-warn claim that is essential to the case. The ruling has not resolved the substantive issue, which will have to await another case.