The Asbestos Alliance | History of the Asbestos Issue

Why the System Doesn't Work

Some of the more serious reasons as to why the current system is broken include:

Indefensible delays: The U.S. Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation, appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1991, found that the typical asbestos case took 31 months — nearly three years — to wind its way to resolution through the court system, compared with 18 months for a typical liability suit. Since then the situation has worsened — many defendant companies have gone bankrupt. The bankrupt companies may take as long as nine years to pay claims to the sick. However, the disease does not wait — with the situation as it stands, victims may die without knowing whether their families will receive fair compensation.

Clogged court dockets: The vast majority of pending suits claim exposure to asbestos and seek compensation, even though many of these claimants are not yet sick and may never become ill. The claims of those who are not sick clog the courts, diverting resources from the genuinely sick in the future. By flooding court dockets, asbestos litigation also hinders the resolution of all civil cases. The costs of dealing with this flood of cases are, of course, borne by the taxpayers, who pay for the overwhelmed judicial system.

Financially burdened companies: The vast number of cases and high costs of defense pile additional liabilities onto the balance sheets of otherwise healthy companies and strain their ability to fairly compensate individuals who have or will develop documented illnesses.

Consolidation of cases and venue-shopping: When cases are consolidated, it means that those with cancer, other sicknesses — and even those who are not sick — may be mixed together into a single case. This practice is not fair to those who are most seriously ill because cases that may not stand on their own merits are resulting in compensation. Venue-shopping means cases are often brought in courts in locations that have no relation to the claimants or their exposure, but simply have a reputation for large verdicts. Venue-shopping results in larger verdicts which eat away valuable resources that could go to the currently sick and those who may become sick in the future.

Nearly all of the challenges of the current system lead to one of its most serious problems — people who get sick in the future are in danger of not being compensated.

What's Been Done