Damages and Liability
C. Is Delay Not Caused By Defendant Excludable?
Third, Owens-Corning argues that because the delay was caused by the MDL Order, it offends traditional notions of fair play and due process to make a defendant pay for another's delay. Owens-Corning asks that the award of delay damages be recalculated and further maintains that it is unconstitutional to impose delay damages on it for this time period because it was never acting in bad faith and the delay was caused by the court. Were we to adopt the rule of law as articulated by Owens-Corning, we would have to redraft Rule 238(b)(2) to state "during which the defendant did not cause the delay of the trial," instead of "during which the plaintiff caused delay of the trial." We are not so inclined and we find that the plaintiff caused no delay of the trial. Owens-Corning also argues that notwithstanding the language of the rule, requiring it to pay for delay caused by the judiciary is a violation of due process. Owens- Corning fails to comprehend the theory underlying Rule 238. Delay damages merely compensate a plaintiff for money that he or she would have earned on the award if he or she had promptly received it. Costa v. Lauderdale Beach Hotel, 534 Pa. 154, 160, 626 A.2d 566, 569 (Pa. 1993). The rule also functions to prevent a defendant from being unjustly enriched by keeping interest that could be earned during the litigation process on what is essentially the plaintiff's money. Id. n.6. We find no merit to Owens-Corning's argument that delay damages violate due process in this instance. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's decision to award delay damages to the plaintiff.
VI. Conclusion The seating of two jurors in this matter was error, as was allowing into evidence the prior testimony of a witness in an unrelated state court trial and permitting the introduction into evidence of an answer to an interrogatory by a settled co-defendant. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the matter to the district court for a new trial. Costs taxed against appellees.
Asbestos Lawsuit Information
There has been a sharp rise in the number of asbestos lawsuits filed yearly in the United States. Media attention and greater awareness of the disease known as malignant mesothelioma has caused a continual increase in the number of mesothelioma claims being filed by asbestos lawyer and mesothelioma attorney alike. It is estimated that the total cost of asbestos lawsuits will eventually exceed $200 billion. To date, more than 7,000 mesothelioma claims have been filed.
Footnotes
[fn1] . Defendant also argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying: (1) defendant a fair opportunity to prove the liability of a settled co-defendant by denying defendant's request for a continuance to subpoena product identification witnesses and (2) defendant's request for a new trial on the grounds of excessiveness of the verdict. Because of our decision to reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability, we need not address these arguments. [fn2] . Of these eight defendants, four were bankrupt at the time of trial. Of the four remaining defendants, Kirk settled with Garlock, Inc., GAF Corporation, and Owens-Illinois prior to trial. Kirk also previously filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, H.K. Porter Company, Inc., and Southern Textile Corporation. Of these defendants, two were bankrupt and Kirk settled with Pittsburgh Corning prior to trial. [fn3] . Relevant portions of the voir dire of prospective juror # 251 are as follows: