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 changed the law retroactively.
On February 7, 2007, the Florida Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the statute is valid. It ruled that the statute does not impair a vested interest, since "a person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common law." The legislature may change common law by creating new rights or by eliminating old causes of action, even though "settled expectations may be upset . . . ." To be vested, a right "must be more than a mere expectation based on an anticipation of the continuance of an existing law . . . ."
Our amicus brief described 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.