Skip to main content

Class Action Lawsuits - Mesothelioma Lawsuit



Class Action Lawsuits - Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Class Action Lawsuits

A class action is a lawsuit filed by claimants who sue on behalf of a large group of people who have been similarly harmed by the same defendants. Mesothelioma cases are no longer filed as class actions. Instead, claimants file individual personal injury lawsuits or wrongful death lawsuits.


In 2017 alone, more than 4,000 asbestos lawsuits were filed in the U.S., according to a KCIC industry report. Combining all those lawsuits into a single class action would not be good for the people filing them, because each asbestos-exposure case is so unique.

What Is a Class Action Lawsuit?
A class action lawsuit is a claim in which a group of people collectively bring a complaint to court. These types of lawsuits are filed against a defendant by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of a group of “similarly situated” people.

State and federal courts have their own procedural rules governing class actions. Most agree that the group must share similar injuries caused by shared circumstances that raise the same legal issues.

The court must determine that there are sufficient similarities and that separate lawsuits would be impractical or burdensome. Then it will certify the group as a class and allow them to litigate their case collectively.

Class action lawsuits involving mesothelioma and asbestos began surfacing in the late 1960s. At the time, the public had just become aware of the serious health hazards of asbestos exposure. Since then, judges have resorted to a number of procedural methods to manage asbestos claims that now number in the millions.

History of Mesothelioma and Asbestos Class Actions
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
About 20 years after the first mesothelioma and asbestos class action lawsuits were filed, the number of cases grew to about 20,000.

As awareness increased and doctors diagnosed more people with mesothelioma, the number of claims escalated to 750,000 in another 20 years. Judges were aware of the overwhelming number of claims and the difficulty of managing so many.

In 1991, federal asbestos cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pretrial purposes. Multidistrict asbestos litigation continues to be heard in this court, and is known as MDL 875.


Quick Fact:
Mesothelioma class actions typically are filed against companies that knew the dangers of asbestos exposure but did not inform employees of the risks. Manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products, mining and construction companies and shipbuilders are often named as defendants in these types of class actions.


Georgine v. Amchem Inc.
The presiding judge was expected to facilitate a global settlement between the major asbestos defendants and plaintiffs’ attorneys. That effort failed. A group of asbestos manufacturers and major plaintiff’s firms attempted to negotiate a settlement agreement. Not intending to go to trial, the parties filed a complaint, answer, joint motion to certify a class and a proposed settlement agreement for Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc.

Under the proposal in Amchem, the parties would seek to create a class solely for settlement purposes. Claims of unimpaired plaintiffs would be deferred and a payment matrix would be applied to other claims, including future asbestos claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled against class certification. The court ruled that it was inappropriate because the class of claimants was too large and had too many varied interests. In addition, common questions of law and fact did not predominate within the proposed class.

Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
Since Amchem, federal courts have not favored asbestos class actions. In Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled against certifying an asbestos class action. State courts have generally been more willing to certify class actions than federal courts. Still, asbestos class actions are not common.


Deciding Whether to Participate in a Class Action
If you are asked to join an asbestos class action, remember that you can choose to join the class or “opt out” so that you can pursue your own lawsuit. You should consider hiring a mesothelioma attorney to advise you on your individual circumstances and legal options.

Out-of-Court Settlements
An out-of-court settlement is likely when a large group of claimants is involved. Any settlement is divided among thousands of claimants. This may be attractive to patients who wish to avoid a trial. But it is difficult to get several plaintiffs and defendants to reach agreement on legal issues. If the parties manage to reach an agreement on a class action settlement, the court must still approve the settlement terms.

Difficulties with Large Plaintiff Numbers
Class action members have less control over their cases than claimants who file separate lawsuits. Lawyers who handle class actions represent the interests of a large number of plaintiffs.

Attorneys for individual lawsuits can focus more closely on their client’s individual issues. Many asbestos claimants prefer to have more control over their cases and opt not to join class actions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mesothelioma Lawsuit After Death - America’s Toxic Legacy

America’s toxic legacy may leave behind a half-million deaths WASHINGTON, D.C. — The first sign of trouble came as Bill Rogers was mowing his lawn one morning in January 2007. “As I would go back and forth with the mower, I would run out of air,” says Rogers, 67, of Palm Bay, Fla. Rogers went to the doctor and learned that his right lung was full of fluid. Three days later he was diagnosed with mesothelioma , a lethal tumor that occurs in the lining of the chest or the abdomen and is almost always associated with asbestos exposure. “I’d heard of it, but I didn’t really know what it was,” he says. “They told me it’s not a good cancer to get.” That Rogers is alive more than three years after his diagnosis is something of a miracle. To him, the source of his illness is clear: He worked on or around asbestos -containing automobile brakes, mostly at General Motors dealerships, for 44 years. He and his co-workers had used compressed-air hoses to clean out brake drums, where debri

Mesothelioma Lawsuit After Death - Asbestos Exposure

Mesothelioma Lawsuit After Death - Asbestos Exposure Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive form of cancer affecting the tissue lining the lungs, stomach, heart and other vital organs caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos. Between 3800 and 4000 new cases are diagnosed in the United States each year. Life expectancy for the most common form of the disease is only 4-24 months following the onset of symptoms. Although the link between asbestos and disease has been investigated since the early 20th century, it wasn’t until 1989 that the EPA issued an Asbestos Ban and Phase Out Rule (only to see it overturned two years later.) As recently as 2008, asbestos has been found in Polk County, when the Polk County Sheriff’s Department uncovered illegal dumping of the material in Winter Haven. In St. Petersburg, a real estate developer was indicted for the illegal handling of thousands of square feet of asbestos in 2010. While the EPA has established exposure limits for asbestos,

Mesothelioma Lawsuit Death

Mesothelioma Lawsuit Death The Court of Appeals of California recently resolved a contentious mesothelioma lawsuit in which an asbestos company attempted to deny the children of a deceased man the right to pursue wrongful death claims. The case pitted Elementis Chemicals, Inc. against the adult children of Marty Marteney, who died of mesothelioma in January of 2015. The Marteney’s mesothelioma lawsuit was similar to many others: Marty and his wife Marie filed a claim against Elements, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), and many other defendants, accusing them of having been involved in the manufacture and marketing of asbestos-containing products that caused his illness. The couple settled with several of the defendants, leaving only Union Carbide and Elementis to litigate their claim, and at trial a jury apportioned a percentage of responsibility to those companies. As per the terms of the settlement with the others (which included language pertaining to wrongful death claim