Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number Nos. 80-2762 to 80-2765. Attorney(S) Edward Rubin, Robert Redler (argued), Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin Maxwell, Lansdale, Pa., for appellants. Patrick T. Ryan, Virginia Gibson-Mason, Drinker, Biddle Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., David Booth Beers (argued), S. Elizabeth Gibson, Thomas R. Andrews, Shea Gardner, Washington, D.C., for Cassiar Asbestos Corp. Ltd. Edward B. Joseph, Frederic L. Goldfein, Ominsky, Joseph Welsh, Philadelphia, Pa., for Asbestos Corp., Ltd. Robert M. Britton, James F. Gallo, Post Schell, Philadelphia, Pa., for Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. Charles W. Craven, Marshall, Dennehey Warner, Philadelphia, Pa., for Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos, Canadian Johns-Manville Co., Johns-Manville Sales Corp. G. Wayne Renneisen, Joel D. Gusky, Harvey, Pennington, Hertin Renneisen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. Judges Ruggero John Aldisert John Joseph Gibbons Joseph Francis Weis Acts Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — United States As Party Generally — Particular Proceedings — Time For Commencing Action Against United States See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. DaMATO, CARL A., DaMATO, ROSE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS IN No. 80-2762, v. TURNER NEWALL, LTD., BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., SPECIAL ASBESTOS COMPANY, INC., CASSIAR ASBESTOS CORP. LTD., ASBESTOS CORPORATION, LTD., HUXLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE ASBESTOS, LTD., CANADIAN JOHNS-MANSVILLE COMPANY, LTD., JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, GAF CORPORATION, LAKE ASBESTOS CORPORATION OF QUEBEC, CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD., NORTH AMERICAN ASBESTOS CORPORATION, GENERAL MINING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, LTD., TURNER ASBESTOS FIBRES, LTD., CENTRAL ASBESTOS COMPANY, LTD. AND CERTAIN TEED CORPORATION (COUNT VII ONLY), RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN, INC., SOUTHERN ASBESTOS. LINDAHL, PEARL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LINDAHL, FRED S., DECEASED, APPELLANT IN No. 80-2763, OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: The question for decision in this appeal by plaintiffs from adverse summary judgments in diversity actions brought under Pennsylvania law is whether the district court erred in determining that when the plaintiffs knew the physical causes and sources of their injuries, their lack of knowledge about the legal bases for prospective claims will not toll the Pennsylvania statute of limitations. We affirm. We are satisfied that Judge Newcomer's opinion in Grabowski v. Turner Newall, 516 F. Supp. 114 (E.D.Pa. 1980), sets forth the appropriate legal precepts and properly applied the undisputed facts thereto. Additional support for the view we take is found in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C.P. 1980) (Takiff, J.). See also Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc., ___ Pa.Super. ___, ___, 425 A.2d 428, 436 (1981) (citing Volpe with approval); cf. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979) (interpreting two year limitation period in Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401). The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.