I'm blogging several times a day about products liability for Law.com. Each day I cross-post an excerpt of the day's blog I find most interesting.
Mass torts cases must not be aggregated, and plaintiffs must provide facts to support their claims through expert reports, in order to avoid having nonmeritorious cases clogging the court process, says the federal judge presiding over the federal Asbestos Multidistrict Litigation for 5.5 years.
Asbestos MDL-875 has been the largest MDL in terms of claims and cases, wrote U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in an article published in the Widener Law Journal.
The consolidation of large number of cases not only raises due process issues by forcing parties to litigate or settle cases in groups, but incentivizes “the number of cases that can be filed, not the relative merit of the individual case,” Robreno said.
Asbestos litigation has grown to over 186,000 cases and more than 10 million claims. Only 2,979 cases are still in the MDL.During his tenure presiding over the MDL, Robreno reported he decided 528 summary judgment motions, 59 issues of substantive state law, 16 issues of federal substantive law and 16 issues of federal procedural law.
Consolidating cases also did not work to resolve the MDL, Robreno said, adding it was an open question whether a national MDL was necessary to resolve the claims.
One of the reasons aggregations of cases did not work to resolve the cases was that class certification was rejected by the Third Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court, Robreno said. The first asbestos MDL judge, Judge Charles R. Weiner, tried to settle the claims of 250,000 to 2 million individuals who had been exposed to asbestos. The settlement was rejected on appeal because of the “Supreme Court's concerns over the manageability of such a mixed and large class, as well as the inability of the class mechanisms to deal with the issue of future claimants,” Robreno said. Federal legislative fixes also failed.And when aggregation failed, the court and the parties did not return to the task of handling the cases on an individual basis, Robreno said. “This stage of litigation led some litigants to refer to MDL875 as a 'black hole,' where cases disappeared forever from the active dockets of the court,” he wrote.
While, “as a matter of judicial culture, remanding cases is viewed as an acknowledgment that the MDL judge has failed to resolve the case, by adjudication or settlement, during the MDL process,” Robreno said he turned away from that mindset and set a “rigorous schedule” for hearing summary judgment motions and issuing decisions.
Due to bankruptcies by the companies that made asbestos, litigation has shifted to bankruptcy courts and to the makers and suppliers of components that contained asbestos, including manufacturers or suppliers of brakes, turbines and packing. “In sum, the time between the filing of motions for summary judgment and the panel's issuing a remand order was 74 days,” he said.
More than 600 cases have been remanded to 59 districts. Most of those cases resolved without the need for a trial on the merits.
There also is an issue of fraud in asbestos fraud, Robreno said, with doctors acting as litigation consultants and making positive findings “often upwards of 50% and in some studies as high as 90%, suggesting that the readings may not be neutral or legitimate.”
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
