Notable Asbestos Class Actions

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

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

Although a lower District Court approved the plan theSupreme Court reversed that decision for several reasons. In a class action suit, themain points of any agreement must be common to all of the plaintiffs in thatclass. In this case, the petition grouped all current and future claimants intoone class, for which there were insufficient common interests. Not all of thepotential claimants had manifested symptoms of asbestos-related diseases. Somealleged only exposure. There were no subclasses delineated, and no distinctionsdrawn between the many different types of disease and injuries that could resultfrom asbestos exposure. By not drawing any such distinctions, there was no wayto determine a settlement that addressed claimants equitably. For example, aperson who was merely exposed with no symptoms had not incurred the sameexpenses and losses as a person who developed advanced fibrosis and was nolonger able to work, but was incurring endless medical bills for diagnosis,care, and treatment.

The plaintiffs named in the action were given the option toopt out of this plan within a specified period of time, but that provisionprevented future claimants from opting out. Since all future claimants wereautomatically included in the “plan” an attorney couldn’t represent them andtheir individual or common needs if these were not identified in the plan. Byincluding “all future claimants” the plan essentially eliminated thepossibility of other class actions or individual lawsuits.

Foreseeing an additional 65,000 to 100,000 people developingasbestos-related illnesses by the year 2015, this plan would have been imposedupon them, regardless of whether or not it was adequate to meet their futureneeds. The plan didn’t make any provision for any medical research that wouldbe done later, disease discoveries, care and treatment of the future.

If you have been diagnosed with an asbestos-caused diseaseand would like to learn more about joining a class action or personal claimagainst a negligent employer, you should consult with an experienced asbestosattorney as soon as possible. There are strict time limits that governeligibility to file a claim called Statutes of Limitations. To preserve yourrights and hold employers responsible for your losses you must act quickly.