Appellate decision may allow resurrection of thousands of asbestos suits

A decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal may help thousands of people with pending asbestos-related lawsuits, by invalidating a retroactivity law which was designed to limit the number of people who were eligible to sue. The ruling was a reversal of thirteen decisions previously made by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Elizabeth Maass, which upheld the retroactivity law. Some of the cases on which the ruling was based date back as far as 1999. This week’s decision now allows plaintiffs the chance to revive those cases. Not surprisingly, plaintiffs’ attorneys say the ruling is a new victory for thousands of people who are still waiting to have their cases heard in court. “It certainly means that there are thousands of cases that were in the pipeline that were retroactively thrown out by this legislation that now may see new life,” said one attorney. Another said that the new ruling could revive as many as four thousand asbestos-related lawsuits across Florida. On the other hand, lawyers working for defendant companies are less than thrilled. One said, the law was created to “put people who were sick at the head of the line,” but now that it’s been overturned, there is the potential for “people who aren’t really sick…[to be] cutting in the line ahead of people who are sick.” If the decision is appealed, it would likely be based partially on a conflict between District Courts of Appeal in West Palm Beach and Miami. The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami concluded that the retroactivity law was valid, and since the 4th District Court ruling in West Palm Beach disagrees, the conflict could allow for an appeal and review by a higher court. Judge Gary Farmer wrote for the 4th District Court’s unanimous decision that the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act “may not constitutionally be applied to eliminate the existing vested rights in the lawsuits pending when the act became effective [on July 1, 2005].” The Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act set new impairment standards on which plaintiffs’ eligibility to file suit became based. People affected with asbestosis (a non-malignant disease) must have lost at least 20% of their breathing capacity, and people with lung cancer would have to have diminished breathing capacity and asbestosis (to rule out the effects of smoking as a causative agent in the cancer). (Source: Asbestos and Mesothelioma News)