Notable Asbestos Class Actions

1:27 am

Since the 1933 lawsuit in which an attorney representing eleven asbestos workers filed suit against employer Johns-Manville, the number of employees and other people suffering devastating health affects from asbestos exposure has soared. By the 1970s it became apparent that the effects of asbestos often took 20 to 50 years to manifest the diseases they caused. Since then over 200,000 people have died of asbestos related diseases. Many of those afflicted have filed suit, either individually or as class actions creating a backlog of claims in the courts and prompting the need to find a more efficient way of processing these claims.

A 1997 class action case in which employers attempted to limit their liability as well as to expedite the claims process was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision concerning a petition submitted by the companies. In Amchem Products, Inc., et al. v. Windsor et al. the petition was proposed by 20 asbestos-using employers that would offer settlement based upon nine plaintiffs’ and their families being representative of a class of people who, prior to their current suit, had not previously sued any of the 20 companies involved in the suit. Additionally these plaintiffs had been exposed to asbestos through employment with one of these companies, either their own or that of a spouse or household member, or was the spouse or household member of one who had been exposed.

Although a lower District Court approved the plan the Supreme Court reversed that decision for several reasons. In a class action suit, the main points of any agreement must be common to all of the plaintiffs in that class. In this case, the petition grouped all current and future claimants into one class, for which there were insufficient common interests. Not all of the potential claimants had manifested symptoms of asbestos-related diseases. Some alleged only exposure. There were no subclasses delineated, and no distinctions drawn between the many different types of disease and injuries that could result from asbestos exposure. By not drawing any such distinctions, there was no way to determine a settlement that addressed claimants equitably. For example, a person who was merely exposed with no symptoms had not incurred the same expenses and losses as a person who developed advanced fibrosis and was no longer able to work, but was incurring endless medical bills for diagnosis, care, and treatment.

The plaintiffs named in the action were given the option to opt out of this plan within a specified period of time, but that provision prevented future claimants from opting out. Since all future claimants were automatically included in the