Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
230 Wis.2d 212 (1991)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Robert Sopha was an insulator for 44 years, regularly working with products containing asbestos. In the late 1970s or early 1980s Robert was diagnosed with pleural thickening or asbestosis. In 1987, Robert and his wife, Margaret Sopha (plaintiff), filed an action in a Wisconsin state court against Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (OC) (defendant) and several other entities, seeking damages for Robert’s asbestosis, damage to his lungs, and the risk of cancer. The court dismissed the case on the merits and with prejudice in 1989, holding that the three-year statute of limitations had expired. In December 1996, Robert was first diagnosed with mesothelioma, a malignant condition caused by asbestos exposure. In March 1997, the Sophas filed this case against OC and twelve other entities, of which ten were the same defendants as in the 1987 action, seeking damages for his mesothelioma. Robert died eight months later of mesothelioma, and the complaint was amended to include a claim for wrongful death and to substitute Robert’s estate for Robert. OC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and res judicata. The court granted summary judgment in favor of OC, holding that the statute of limitations barred the claims but res judicata did not apply. The appeal was certified to this court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Abrahamson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.