Specter on Asbestos
---
Those following the asbestos settlement fund proposal currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee should review the op-ed in today's Washington Times by its principal sponsor, Senator Arlen Specter.
As Specter emphasizes:
Sounds about right. Compensating people for the probabilistic harm of future injury is not necessarily a bad idea; neither is awarding the costs of medical monitoring. But in the case of asbestos, where resources to pay claims are limited (because most of the companies have gone or are going bankrupt), preserving those funds for actual harm of future victims must take precedent over potential harm of present victims. There simply isn't enough money to go around. Judgment-proof, or near-judgment-proof, defendants are a sad fact of judicial life.
The asbestos fund proposal is a mammoth piece of legislation covering a mammoth issue, yet seems to be receiving scant media attention (as opposed to the relentless barrage of television commercials for personal injury attorneys trolling for asbestos clients). As Specter notes:
In light of the looming COX-2 litigation explosion, not to mention whatever other product liability nightmares loom in our future, this issue and this bill should be on more people's radar screens.
UPDATE: Point of Law Forum -- "In any event, the devil will be in the details of how claims are to be processed and what medical standards will be used..." No disagreement from me.
Related Posts:
I Do Asbestos I Can
Specter Proposes $140 Billion Asbestos Settlement Fund
As Specter emphasizes:
Workers exposed to asbestos would be paid based on severity of injuries like workmen's compensation without proving in court who would be liable under existing tort laws, eliminating high costs of litigation and contingent attorneys' fees. Unlike current law where exposure may be compensated for potential future injuries, damages can be collected only on proof of existing harm.
Sounds about right. Compensating people for the probabilistic harm of future injury is not necessarily a bad idea; neither is awarding the costs of medical monitoring. But in the case of asbestos, where resources to pay claims are limited (because most of the companies have gone or are going bankrupt), preserving those funds for actual harm of future victims must take precedent over potential harm of present victims. There simply isn't enough money to go around. Judgment-proof, or near-judgment-proof, defendants are a sad fact of judicial life.
The asbestos fund proposal is a mammoth piece of legislation covering a mammoth issue, yet seems to be receiving scant media attention (as opposed to the relentless barrage of television commercials for personal injury attorneys trolling for asbestos clients). As Specter notes:
[A] unique experiment was undertaken with Senior Federal Judge Edward R. Becker agreeing to serve as a mediator. Judge Becker and I have met the stakeholders in 36 mediation sessions since August 2003, working through hundreds of issues. Those conferences produced many compromises and narrowed areas of disagreement on many issues. I think it accurate to say that no bill has received such extensive "defacto" hearings or mark-up. I cannot conceive of more strenuous effort being directed to any legislation. Twenty-seven Senate offices have participated.
In light of the looming COX-2 litigation explosion, not to mention whatever other product liability nightmares loom in our future, this issue and this bill should be on more people's radar screens.
UPDATE: Point of Law Forum -- "In any event, the devil will be in the details of how claims are to be processed and what medical standards will be used..." No disagreement from me.
Related Posts:
I Do Asbestos I Can
Specter Proposes $140 Billion Asbestos Settlement Fund
Posted by KipEsquire on
1 March 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
