The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently heard oral arguments regarding the “any given exposure” theory in the Rost case. The plaintiff argued that the expert opined that all documented exposures would play a causative role in plaintiff’s development of mesothelioma as opposed to opining that “any given exposure” caused the same.

Seemingly appreciating this subtle distinction, the Court cautioned defendants against attempting to setup reversible error by trapping plaintiff’s experts into using such prohibited “any given exposure” language, a strategy which the Court deemed a “reverse magic words argument.”

Consequently, the causation standard in Pennsylvania, while continuing to prohibit the “any given exposure” opinion, may be in flux with the ultimate Rost decision, and it will be interesting to learn how the Court ultimately rules on this arguable distinction.

This alert serves as an update on the authors’ original alert regarding the Rost case, which can be found here. Please stay tuned for an update regarding the Court’s ultimate opinion on this issue and please contact the authors regarding how this case may affect your business.