The NAM and other associations filed an amicus brief 8/20/03 urging the Michigan Supreme Court to adopt a statewide inactive docket for asbestos cases in which the plaintiffs do not yet meet medical criteria for asbestos injury. The statute of limitations for such inactive cases would stop running until the plaintiffs manifested actual injuries. The petition is designed to allow cases involving plaintiffs with actual injuries to proceed to trial or settlement, and for all others to wait until there is some proof of injury. This position is strongly opposed by Michigan plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court asked for comments on two alternatives: (1) creation of an inactive docket and (2) a 2-tier system where cases without actual injuries wait until all cases with injuries are resolved.On May 23, 2006, the NAM joined with 15 other organizations to support the proposed court administrative order. The proposal relies on medical criteria developed by the American Bar Association Commission on Asbestos Litigation, and does not prevent the filing of any lawsuit or otherwise impair any substantive rights. Our memorandum supports the court’s power to issue an administrative order and asks that the many claims filed as a result of mass screenings where there is no evidence of symptoms or impairment be placed on an inactive docket. Some states do not even recognize the right to file suit without a physical impairment, but this proceeding does not raise any such substantive issues.
Our memorandum also asks that claims by both impaired and unimpaired plaintiffs not be joined in one lawsuit, and cases involving different plaintiffs not be consolidated together without consent or unless the plaintiffs are in the same household.
On 8/9/2006, the Court issued an order prohibiting the bundling of asbestos cases for settlement or trial. Since each case hinges on different facts, it is unfair to lump seriously ill plaintiffs together with other cases. Cases may be joined, however, solely for purposes of discovery.