WPCz 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q UB %C 1uI 0d B" U6? U>u B) DC AMU*l D3 0@uv~v AO$ 0D D/. B]ڃ"3|x($ DDDEDӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial 'dxd  !  #d#$  ))   YYY FILED)X August27,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#$   $       %%&Thesecaseswereconsolidatedforthepurposesofappealandselectedasrepresentativeofall0 suchcasespendingintheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty,Tennessee,andbyagreementofthepartiesthedecisioninthesecaseswillbebindingonallsuchcasesnowpendinginthosecourts.("$     k !#d#$   $       $&%AswenotedinJones,the accrualdateisrelativeonlyinthosecaseswherethecauseofaction0 hadaccruedbeforethepassageofastatuteofrepose.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . $        \RA'\\RA'\7mXXdd7%%R(+'A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION PAULG.BOWMAN,etux.,  )C/ANO.03A019703CV00092      )JAMESR.KIRKLAND,etux.,  )KNOXCIRCUIT,DIVISIONSI,      )II,ANDIIIFRANKV.HENSLEY,etux.,  )      )HON.HAROLDWIMBERLY, PlaintiffsAppellants,  )JUDGE      )v.      )HON.WHEELERA.ROSENBALM,      )JUDGEABESTCOMPANY,INC.,etal., )      )HON.DALEC.WORKMAN, Defendants,    )JUDGE      ) * * *   )      )OWENSILLINOIS,INC.,   )AFFIRMED      )AND Appellee.    )REMANDEDHUGHB.BRIGHT,JR.,M.DENISEMORETZ,WOOLF,McCLANE,BRIGHT,ALLEN&CARPENTER,Knoxville,forAppellee.GEORGEA.WEBER,III,EDWARDJ.LILLY,andMIKEG.NASSIOS,LAWOFFICESOFPETERG.ANGELOS,P.C.,Knoxville,andJOHNA.DAY,Nashville,forPlaintiffsAppellants.@ OPINION         Franks.J.  Intheseactions,plaintiffsclaimedexposuretoproductscontainingasbestos,andallegedthattheycontractedasbestosisrelateddiseasesasaresultofoccupationalexposuretoasbestoscontainingproducts. ,   ׀  DefendantOwensIllinois,Inc.,filedamotionfor Dismissaland/orSummaryJudgment,assertingthatitsolditsentireinsulationproductsbusinessasofApril30,1958,anddidnotmanufacture,sellordistributeanyasbestoscontainingproductsafterApril30,1958,andconcludedthatallexposuretoitsproduct,ifany,wasincurredmorethantenyearsbeforetheenactmentoftheTennesseeProductsLiabilityAct,in1978,whichcontainedatenyearstatuteofrepose,i.e.,TennesseeCodeAnnotated2928103(a).ThemotionacknowledgedthatTennesseeCodeAnnotated2928103(b)effectiveJuly1,1979excludedapplicationof103(a)sactionsresultingfromexposuretoasbestos,butthisamendmentwouldnotapplytoϜclaimsbarredbeforetheenactmentofthe1979amendment.  TheTrialCourt,relyingonWyattv.ABestProductsCo.,924S.W.2d98(Tenn.App.1995),granteddefendantssummaryjudgment,andplaintiffshaveappealed.  Onappeal,plaintiffsarguethatWyattdoesnotaddresstheissuepresentedinplaintiffsoppositiontothemotionforsummaryjudgment,i.e.,plaintiffshadsufferedaninjuryatthetimeofexposure,andthusacquiredacauseofaction,and thatanexistingcauseofactionmaynotbeextinguishedbythesubsequentpassageoftheProductsLiabilityStatuteofRepose.Itisfurtherarguedthatthoseundiscoveredinjuriescausedbydefendantsproducts constituteacauseofactionandsincetheTennesseeProductsLiabilityAct canonlybeappliedϜprospectively,itspassagein1978 couldhavenoeffectuponanexistingcauseofactionacquiredbyplaintiffs,butatthatpointundiscovered.Plaintiffsassertionthatthey possessedanexistingcauseofactionwhichcouldnotbeextinguishedbythelaterenactedstatuteisnotsupportedbythecases.  Therecordforpurposesofsummaryjudgmentessentiallyestablishesthatplaintiffswereexposedtoasbestospriorto1958,andsufferedinjuryanddamagefromthatexposure.AtthetimeofthepassageoftheProductsLiabilityAct,plaintiffswerenotawarethattheirexposuretotheproducthadresultedininjuriestothem,anditwasadecadelaterthatthey discoveredtheirinjuries.  PlaintiffsarguethatJonesv.MorristownHamblenHospitalAssn,Inc.,595S.W.2d816(Tenn.App.1979) isdirectlyonpoint,quotingatpage821:0 0 UnderTeeters,decedenthadonlya causeofactionwhichhadthepotentialtoripenintoa rightofaction.Shehadnopresentrighttosueuntilheractionaccrued,discoverybeingaconditionprecedenttotheaction.OntheeffectivedateoftheAct,decedenthadnotdiscoveredherinjury;herrightofactionunderTeetershadnotaccrued.Therightofactionwhichhadbeenvestedunderpriorlawhadexpired.  Itisuniversallyheldthatanactoromissionwherebyonesustainsinjury,nomatterhowslight,startsthestatuteoflimitationsrunning.LimitationsofAction,51Am.Jur.2d109,p.681.WeheldinJonesinthenextparagraphaftertheabovequote, applicationof233415(a)tothissuitdoesnotimpairanyvestedrightofactionexistingatthetimeofitseffectivedateandis,therefore,constitutionallypermissible.(Emphasisapplied).ThefactsofthesecasesaresimilartoJones.Nocausesofactionexistedasdefinedbythecasesonbehalfoftheseplaintiffsatthetimethestatutewaspassedin1978.InWyattv.ABestCo.,910S.W.2d851(Tenn.1995),theSupremeCourtsaid:0 0 [a]causeofactionintortdoesnotaccrueuntilajudicialremedyisavailable.Pottsv.CelotexCorp.,796S.W.2dat681;Fosterv.Harris,633S.W.2d304,305(Tenn.1982).Ajudicialremedyisavailablewhen(1)abreachofalegallyrecognizeddutyowedtoplaintiffbydefendant(2)causesplaintifflegallycognizabledamage.Pottsv.CelotexCorp.,796S.W.2dat681.Abreachofalegallycognizabledutyoccurswhenplaintiffdiscoversor reasonablyshouldhavediscovered,(1)theoccasion,themannerandmeansbywhichabreachofdutyoccurredthatproduced...injury;and(2)theidentityofthedefendantwhobreachedtheduty.Fosterv.Harris,633S.W.2dat305.Legallycognizabledamagesoccurwhenplaintiffdiscovers factswhichwouldsupportanactionfortortagainstthetortfeaser....P.855.TheSupremeCourtinCroninv.Howe,906S.W.2d910(Tenn.1995)elucidatedtheoperationaldifferencebetweenastatuteoflimitationsandastatuteofrepose.TheCourtsaid:0 0 [w]heretheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsgovernsthetimewithinwhichlegalproceedingsmaybecommencedafteracauseofactionaccrues,thethreeyearmedicalmalpracticestatuteofreposelimitsthetimewithinwhichanactionmaybebrought,butitisentirelyunrelatedtotheaccrualofacauseofactionandcan,infact,baracauseofactionbeforeithasaccrued....Thatdistinctionhaspromptedcourtstoholdthatstatutesofreposearesubstantiveandextinguishboththerightandtheremedy,whilestatutesoflimitationaremerelyprocedural,extinguishingonlytheremedy.Inthesecasesthecausesofactionhadnotaccrued,andthestatuteofreposehadtheϜeffectofbarringtherightandremedybeforetheyaccruedwhich,asCroninnotes,ispermissible.  TheTrialCourtappropriatelyreliedonJudgeSusanosopinioninWyattv.ABestProductsCo.,924S.W.2d98(Tenn.App.1995).Wyattsaid sincethetenyearperiodsetforthinT.C.A.2928103(a)isastatuteofrepose,wedonotbelieveitislogicaltofocusonthedateofaccrual,since,asnotedabove,thestatuterunsfromthetriggeringeventwithoutregardtoaccrual, .   כandheldthat WyattsclaimwasbarredbytheT.P.L.A.beforehecouldberationallyexpectedtohavebeenawarethathesufferedaninjury.P.104.  Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremandatplaintiffscost.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________%XCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.%