The NAM joined in an amicus brief with 5 other business groups supporting Florida’s new asbestos/silica medical criteria law, which requires the dismissal of cases brought by plaintiffs who are not physically impaired where asbestos or silica exposure was a substantial contributing factor. Meanwhile, the statute of limitations is tolled -- those cases may be brought after the plaintiffs develop a physical impairment that satisfies the minimum requirements of the law. The trial court ruled that the new statute is unconstitutional with respect to pending cases because it changes the law retroactively. The judge found that there is "little public interest" served by the new law's requirements. Our amicus brief challenges this conclusion, describing the asbestos litigation crisis that led Florida to change its law and the need for courts to dismiss cases where no injury has yet been discovered. We focused on mass filings by non-sick individuals threatening the truly sick, unreliable medical screenings, and the effect of these claims on solvency, peripheral defendants and the Florida economy.
The amicus group included the NAM and Associated Industries of Florida, American Insurance Assn., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Tort Reform Assn. and American Chemistry Council.
On 4/4/07, the Florida Court of Appeals reversed, under the precedent that was established in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Hurst (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007), in which the court rejected a constitutional challenge to retroactive application of the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act.
Finally, on 9/19/07, the Florida Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for discretionary review, citing the same precedent-setting case.