dissenting.
Plaintiffs in this case are persons (and their spouses) who contracted asbestosis after long-term exposure to raw asbestos fibres in their workplace. The usual manifestation period for asbestosis is twenty to thirty years. See Deposition of Anthony Dowell, M.D., at 138, Braswell Record. Thus, in many instances an employee will have retired from employment and will have ceased to be exposed to asbestos fibres before the disease manifests itself. This is what happened to plaintiffs in this case.
To state the obvious, if an asbestosis claimant brought an action against manufacturers of asbestos before any manifestation of the disease, the claimant would be “laughed out of court,” Martinez-Ferrer v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 105 Cal.App.3d 316, 323, 164 Cal.Rptr. 591, 595 (1980). On. the other hand, if the claimant waits for the disease to manifest itself, the claimant, under the court’s holding today, may be barred from bringing a claim by Indiana’s statute of limitations. This result is a mockery of justice.
In diversity actions such as this, the federal courts cannot and should not substitute their judgment for that of the state courts *534on matters of state law. I do not believe that the Indiana Supreme Court has conclusively declared the result announced by the majority in this case. Particularly when the result is as unjust as it is here, this court has a duty to avoid creating state law if possible. Indiana’s certification procedure should be used to give the Indiana Supreme Court an opportunity to decide an important point of Indiana law which directly affects the ability of Indiana residents to recover damages for debilitating injuries.
I disagree with the majority’s finding that Shideler v. Dwyer, 417 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 1981), the only case in which the Indiana Supreme Court has addressed the issue of a discovery rule, necessarily governs the present case. In Shideler the court held that a cause of action against an attorney for malpractice in drafting a will accrued when the testator died. The court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the action did not accrue until the probate court found that the provision for plaintiff was void. Shideler can be distinguished from the present case on at least three grounds.
First, the court in Shideler expressly noted the possibility of adopting a different rule in a case in which “the misconduct was of a continuing nature or concealed . ... ” Id. at 291. In Shideler, the defendant’s alleged negligence arose out of the single action of drafting the will and that negligence was at least capable of discovery any time after the contents of the will were disclosed, which necessarily occurred upon the death of the testator, if not before. See also Wojcik v. Almase, 451 N.E.2d 336, 342 (Ind.App.1983) (action against manufacturer of catheter that broke off in plaintiff’s body).* In this case, plaintiffs complain of continued exposure to asbestos, the injury from which is not even capable of discovery in many instances on the date of last exposure.
Second, the holding in Shideler was expressly based, in part, on the particular relationship between plaintiff and defendant in the case: “We see no unique relationship between a lawyer who drafts a will and one who is merely the object of his client’s bounty that calls for a special rule. Without more, there is no continuing obligation to the devisee.” 417 N.E.2d at 291. The court recognized that a discovery rule may have “special merit” in other cases. Id. The court could find a discovery rule warranted in the case before us. Indiana is among the large number of states that have recognized special rules of liability for manufacturers. See Ayr-Way Stores, Inc. v. Chitwood, 261 Ind. 86, 92-93, 300 N.E.2d 335, 339-40 (1973); Ind.Code §§ 33-1-1.5-1 to 33-1-1.5-8. These rules of stricter liability exist, in part, because manufacturers are particularly able to bear the costs of compensation for injuries from their products. Certainly “large scale” enterprises such as asbestos manufacturers are in a better position than lawyers and doctors to absorb such costs. See Magrine v. Krasnica, 94 N.J.Super. 228, 237, 227 A.2d 539, 545 (Cty.Ct.1967), aff’d sub nom. Magrine v. Spector, 100 N.J.Super. 223, 241 A.2d 637 (App.Div.1968), aff’d, 53 N.J. 259, 250 A.2d 129 (1969). Moreover, manufacturers of products such as asbestos are more likely to anticipate long-delayed injuries from their products than are lawyers and doctors from their services. Cf. Raymond v. Eli Lilly & Co., 117 N.H. 164, 173, 371 A.2d 170, 176 (1977) (anticipation of long-delayed effects of drugs by drug manufacturers). For these reasons, the concern for repose, which the court stressed in Shideler, has much less appeal in claims against manufacturers than in claims against lawyers. But see Wojcik v. Almase, supra, 451 N.E.2d at 344 (rejecting discovery rule in claim against catheter manufacturer).
Third, some of the claims in this case, depending upon when they are deemed to have accrued, would be governed by a dif*535ferent statute of limitations from the one applied in Shideler. Any actions that are deemed to have accrued after June 1, 1978 would be governed by Indiana’s' new products liability statute of limitations, Ind.Code § 33-1-1.5-5. See id. § 33-l-1.5-8(b). Under this statute, products liability actions must be brought within ten years from the date that the product was delivered to the initial user or consumer, and within two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. If not brought within the ten-year outside limitation period, the action is time barred regardless of when it accrued. See Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 418 N.E.2d 207, 210-11 (Ind.1981). The action in Shideler was governed by Indiana’s tort statute of limitations, Ind.Code § 34-1-2-2, which provides only a two-year accrual period. 417 N.E.2d at 288. The Indiana Supreme Court could reasonably find that the products liability statute’s ten-year outside limitation period guarantees sufficient repose for manufacturers to permit the accrual period to be measured from the date of discovery of the injury. But see Wojcik v. Almase, supra, 451 N.E.2d at 341-42 (rejecting discovery rule in products liability action governed by Ind.Code § 33-1-1.5-5).
In sum, the Indiana Supreme Court might decline to apply a discovery rule in this case, but that result is not compelled by the court’s holding in Shideler.
Most tort statutes of limitation were originally written and construed long before the advent of modern toxic diseases such as asbestosis. The California Court of Appeals, applying a discovery rule in a case involving an injury caused by the drug MER/29 that manifested itself sixteen years after the drug was last ingested, explained:
The simple fact is that rules developed against the relatively unsophisticated backdrops of barroom brawls, intersection collisions and slips and falls lose some of their relevance in these days of miracle drugs with their wondrous, unintended, unanticipated and frequently long delayed side effects .... “[T]he response of the courts to advances in science and technology can be either to adhere rigidly to prior doctrine, denying recovery to those injured by such products, or to fashion remedies to meet these changing needs.” (Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d 588, 610, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 144, 607 P.2d 924, 936.)
Martinez-Ferrer v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., supra, 195 Cal.App.2d at 324, 164 Cal.Rptr. at 595. These rules are similarly irrelevant in cases involving latent diseases from toxic substances. Thus, many courts, following the logic of the California courts, have adopted discovery rules in latent disease cases. See, e.g., Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill.2d 161, 166-71, 52 Ill.Dec. 1, 3-5, 421 N.E.2d 864, 866-68 (1981); Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 580 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Ky.1979); Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70, 78-82, 394 A.2d 299, 304-06 (1978) (questions certified to state court by district court); Hutchison v. Semler, 227 Or. 437, 446, 361 P.2d 803, 807, 362 P.2d 704, 704 (1961) (silicosis from exposure to silica dust); Coyne v. Porter-Hayden Co., 286 Pa. Super. 1, 5, 428 A.2d 208, 210 (1981).
Indiana’s two-year accrual period for actions for personal injuries dates back to 1881. 1881 Ind. Acts (Spec.Sess.) ch. 38, § 38, p. 240. The Indiana courts have never construed its meaning in a claim involving a latent disease such as asbestosis. The Indiana Supreme Court should be given an opportunity to follow the equitable lead of other state courts and to construe its state statutes to meet the changing needs of a modern, technologically advanced society. I would certify to the Indiana Supreme Court, pursuant to Ind.Code § 33-2-4-1, the questions: When does a products liability action against a manufacturer of asbestos for asbestosis caused by exposure to the manufacturer’s product accrue under (I) Indiana’s tort statute of limitations, Ind.Code § 34-1-2-2, and (2) Indiana’s products liability statute of limitations, Ind.Code § 33-1 — 1.5-5?
Even assuming that the rule announced in Shideler governs this case, the majority misapplied that rule here. In Shideler, the *536court held that a cause of action accrues when the injury to plaintiff occurs. 417 N.E.2d at 289. Contrary to the finding of the New York Court of Appeals that the injury in an asbestosis case is the inhalation of the asbestos dust, Schmidt v. Merchants Dispatch Transportation Co., 270 N.Y. 287, 300-01, 200 N.E. 824, 827 (1936),** the injury in such cases is the disease itself. See Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp., 221 Va. 951, 903-905, 275 S.E.2d 900, 904-05 (1981); Vargo & Leibman, Survey of Recent Developments in Indiana Law-Products Liability, 12 Ind.L.Rev. 227, 253 n. 184 (1979); cf. Monsanto Co. v. Miller, No. 1-783 A 213, slip op. at 5, 9-10 (Ind.App. Sept. 23, 1983) (injury from PCB in feed silo occurred and cause of action accrued under Indiana law when the level of PCBs in the herd’s milk first reached an impermissible level, not when the contaminated silage was fed to plaintiff’s herd); Ind.Code § 33-1-1.5-3 (products liability action requires “physical harm” to user or consumer). The date of inhalation of asbestos dust most closely corresponds to the date on which the lawyer in Shideler drafted the will; these were the points of time at which the defendants’ last actions concerning or contacts with plaintiffs occurred. The court in Shideler expressly rejected the argument that the injury occurred and the cause of action accrued at this time. 417 N.E.2d at 290.
Under Shideler, plaintiffs’ actions accrued when their asbestosis first “occurred.” Although it may be difficult to determine when a progressive disease such as asbestosis first occurs, the date of last exposure is clearly irrelevant to that determination. See Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp., supra, 275 S.E.2d at 905. Plaintiffs’ asbestosis could have begun to develop any time before or after that date. Thus, even if Shideler is deemed to govern this case, the case must be remanded to the district court for determinations of the dates on which plaintiffs’ injuries occurred. See Monsanto Co. v. Miller, supra, 455 N.E.2d at 397-398 (remanded to district court for factual determination concerning when cause of action accrued).
Finally, I believe that the majority erred in failing to address the personal jurisdiction issue on appeal in this case. The district court held that it had no personal jurisdiction over defendants Flintkote Mines, Ltd. and Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against these defendants. The district court held that the claims against Flintkote Mines, Ltd. were, in the alternative, time barred by Indiana’s statute of limitations, but made no alternative holding with respect to *537Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. The court made no findings, of fact as to plaintiffs’ last exposure to asbestos manufactured by Bell Asbestos. I believe that the court’s jurisdictional holding was in error. In the absence of an alternative holding or findings of fact, the claim against Bell Asbestos must be remanded to the district court.
Indiana’s long-arm statute, Ind.Trial Rule 4.4(A), subjects these defendants to the jurisdiction of the Indiana courts unless the exercise of jurisdiction would contravene the due process clause. See Valdez v. Ford, Bacon and Davis, Texas, Inc., 62 F.R.D. 7, 14 (N.D.Ind.1974); Griese-Traylor Corp. v. Lemmons, Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 173, 180 (1981). The exercise of personal jurisdiction over these defendants raises no due process concerns.
This case is a far cry from World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), in which the Supreme Court held that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a New York automobile distributor or dealer merely because it was foreseeable that plaintiff would drive his car into other states including Oklahoma. In this case, defendants knowingly transacted business on a continuous basis with Indiana companies and reaped the profits from these transactions.
In Nelson v. Park Industries, Inc., 717 F.2d 1120 (7th Cir.1983), this court held that the Wisconsin courts had personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer and distributor for injuries sustained in Wisconsin from one of their shirts. The manufacturer and distributor conducted all of their business in Hong Kong. The shirt in question was purchased from the distributor in Hong Kong by Woolworth, and placed in a Woolworth store in Wisconsin where it was ultimately bought by the mother of the injured child. The court refused to permit defendants to escape the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin courts by simply performing their sales transactions in a foreign jurisdiction. The manufacturer and distributor “were aware of the Woolworth distribution scheme and derived economic benefit from selling the flannel shirts they placed into and moved along the stream of commerce. We conclude that [they] were participating in that distribution system such that they should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in a forum where the system brought a shirt that allegedly caused injury.” Id. at 1127.
If the manufacturer and distributor in Nelson were subject to the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin courts, there can be no doubt that Flintkote Mines and Bell Asbestos are subject to the jurisdiction of the Indiana courts. They sold their products directly to Indiana companies, derived economic benefits from those sales, and must anticipate being haled into court in Indiana for injuries allegedly sustained there from their products.
For the foregoing reasons, I would certify the statute of limitations question to the Indiana Supreme Court, and would remand the claims against defendant Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. to the district court.
A decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, is not binding on this court, but is relevant data entitled to “proper.regard.” Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 465, 87 S.Ct. 1776, 1782, 18 L.Ed.2d 886 (1967); Garris v. Schwartz, 551 F.2d 156, 158 (7th Cir.1977).
As the majority notes, the Shideler court quoted at length from this case and cited Schwartz v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp., 12 N.Y.2d 212, 216-17, 237 N.Y.S.2d 714, 717, 188 N.E.2d 142, 143—44 (1963), in which the New York Court of Appeals held that a cause of action to recover damages for cancer allegedly resulting from an injection of a radio-opaque dye accrued at the time the drug was injected rather than at the time the injury became apparent. I try to point out in this dissent other statements contained in the Shideler opinion and other decisions of the Indiana courts indicating that Indiana might not apply the New York rule in the present case despite this dictum in Shideler. I believe that the Indiana Supreme Court should be permitted to resolve these apparent conflicts. I should also note that even New York has moved away from its harsh rule in several instances. See, e.g., Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 449, 406 N.Y.S.2d 259, 262, 377 N.E.2d 713, 716 (1978) (defendant estopped from raising statute of limitations as a defense to a tort action where defendant fraudulently concealed the tortious activity from plaintiff); Flanagan v. Mount Eden General Hospital, 24 N.Y.2d 427, 430-32, 301 N.Y.S.2d 23, 26-27, 248 N.E.2d 871, 872-32 (1969) (adopting discovery rule in malpractice actions involving foreign objects left in patient’s body); Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155-56, 237 N.Y.S.2d 319, 321-22, 187 N.E.2d 777, 778-79 (1962) (statute of limitations for malpractice action stayed when course of treatment, which includes wrongful acts or omissions, has run continuously); N.Y. Civil Prac.Law § 214-b (1981 N.Y.Laws ch. 266, § 3) (enacting discovery rule for claims involving injuries from “Agent Orange”). See generally Angie v. Johns-Manville Corp., 94 App.Div.2d 939, 463 N.Y.S.2d 956, 957 (1983) (“a number of judicial decisions and legislative enactments designed to relieve to some degree the harshness of New York’s general rule that a personal injury claim accrues at the time the injury or invasion of the body occurs, not at the time the injury was or could reasonably have been discovered”).