The “Asbestos Wars” - Tucker Ellis LLP Asbestos Wars.pdfasbestos • EPA has no general ban on...
Transcript of The “Asbestos Wars” - Tucker Ellis LLP Asbestos Wars.pdfasbestos • EPA has no general ban on...
The “Asbestos Wars”
John P. PalumboTucker Ellis LLP
Did you know?
• 1929: First asbestos-related case filed
• 1970s: Flood of asbestos-related cases filed
• 1991: MDL-875 was created
• 10,000 people die every year from asbestos-
related diseases
• 1.3 million U.S. workers are still exposed to
asbestos
• EPA has no general ban on the use of asbestos
– Regulated by the Clean Air Act
– Some applications forbidden by the
Toxic Substances Control Act
Three Phases of Asbestos Litigation
I. 1970s – 1990s: Suits against asbestos
manufacturers
II. 2000: twenty-five of the largest asbestos
manufacturers went bankrupt
III. 2000 – 2052: Cases against identified
industries that used asbestos
parts/components
Factors Driving
Asbestos Litigation Today
1. Lax pleading standards
2. Questionable “expert” witness opinions by
plaintiffs
3. Opportunity for “Double Dipping”
Lax Pleading Standards
• Numerous defendants
– Average of 40 defendants
– Let discovery sort it out
• Careless naming of defendants
– No attention to corporate pedigrees
– Defendants – not plaintiffs – have to sort it out
Lax Pleading Standards
• Lack of information in the initial pleadings
– No product identification
– No significant facts regarding exposure
– Generic allegations against “Defendants”
• Master asbestos complaints
• Result: left to sort it out in discovery
Lax Pleading Standards
• Iqbal/Twombly
– Allegations in Complaint must do more than raise mere possibility but rather proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face”
• Iqbal/Twombly challenges
– Mixed success
– Cases dismissed without prejudice
– Cases placed in holding docket
Plaintiffs’ “Experts”
• Daubert and Frye are not applied
– Ipse dixit
• No investigation of the specific facts of the
case
• No cost to plaintiffs in expressing “canned”
opinions
Plaintiffs’ “Experts”
“One Fiber” Theory
– It only takes one fiber above background to make
a person sick.
– Plaintiff is sick.
– Plaintiff worked around defendant’s product.
– Defendant’s product contained asbestos.
– Therefore, defendant’s product made plaintiff sick.
Plaintiffs’ “Experts”
Plaintiffs’ experts make no effort to determine:
– Frequency of exposure
– Regularity of exposure
– Proximity to asbestos-containing product
– Amount asbestos fibers released
Plaintiffs’ “Experts”
Recent opinions challenging this approach
• Number of defendants
– Before bankruptcy wave: 25 defendants
– After bankruptcy wave: 40-100 defendants
• Recovery from bankruptcy trusts between
2000 and 2011: $14 billion
Bankruptcy Wave
Double Dipping
• Allows recovery from:
– Bankruptcy trusts
– Tort-based litigation against solvent companies
• Order sometimes matters
– Lawsuit resolved first
– Then, submit bankruptcy claims
States React
Ohio, West Virginia, New York City, Pennsylvania,
and Texas
– Disclose all trust claims prior to trial
Ohio
• ORC § 2307.951-2307.954
– Plaintiffs must disclose claims prior to trial
– Defendants want to show alternative exposure
from bankrupt entities’ products
– Court can re-open case and re-allocate judgment
based on recoveries from bankruptcy trusts
FACT Act of 2013
• Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency
(FACT) Act of 2013, H.R. 982
• Modeled after FACT Act of 2012
• March 2013: Introduced and assigned to
congressional committee
FACT Act of 2013
• Bankruptcy Trusts Would Be Required to:
– File quarterly reports describing demand and basis
for payment
– Provide information to parties to asbestos
litigation relating to demands and payments, upon
request
FACT Act of 2013
• Not go as far as Ohio legislation
• Primary Advantages
– Forum shopping less appealing
– Stop plaintiffs from hiding existing trust claims
Questions
Thank You