Asbestos Trust Transparency

Originally and for many years, the primary defendants in asbestos cases were companies that mined asbestos or manufactured amphibole-containing thermal insulation. Hundreds of thousands of claims were filed against the major asbestos producers, such as Johns-Manville Corp., Owens Corning Corp., and W.R. Grace & Co. By the late 1990s, asbestos litigation had reached such proportions that the U.S. Supreme Court noted the “elephantine mass” of cases and referred to the litigation as a “crisis.” Mass filings pressured “most of the lead defendants and scores of other companies” into bankruptcy, including virtually all manufacturers of asbestos-containing thermal insulation. Following a 2000–2002 wave of bankruptcies among asbestos manufacturers, plaintiffs’ lawyers began “a search for new recruits to fill the gap in the ranks of defendants.” Many of today’s asbestos defendants are formerly peripheral or new defendants associated with chrysotile-containing products “such as gaskets, pumps, automotive friction products, and residential construction products.” One plaintiffs’ attorney described the asbestos litigation as an “endless search for a solvent bystander.” This Article argues for legislation, such as that enacted in many states, that requires asbestos plaintiffs to pursue quick compensation from the trusts and allows trust-related exposures and compensation to be properly accounted for in asbestos-related personal injury cases. States with substantial asbestos litigation, such as California, Illinois, New York, and Missouri, need the legislation the most

The American Law Institute\u27s Reporters\u27 Study on Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury: A Timely Call for Punitive Damages Reform

This Article focuses on the Reporters\u27 Study on Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury, specifically the Reporters\u27 recommendations for punitive damages reform. The Article discusses the Study\u27s analysis of the need for punitive damages reform, with which the author agrees. The Article also discusses the Study\u27s recommendations concerning reform of the standard by which punitive damages should be awarded, recommendations to set reasonable limits on the size of punitive damage awards, and the recommendation of a shield against punitive damages for products that comply with federal regulatory standards. The authors find that generally the recommendations are fair and reasonable. They believe these suggestions should be given close attention by both legislators and courts