The NAM and five other business groups filed a joint brief on 9/7/07 urging the Florida Court of Appeals to affirm a lower court decision that held Florida’s Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act to be constitutional. Enacted in June 2005 to preserve funds for individuals actually impaired by asbestos, this Act requires dismissal of claims by individuals who show no such impairment. As a result, claimants who cannot presently demonstrate impairment may only bring their cases after they develop a physical impairment that satisfies the minimum requirements of the law. We argued that this Act should be upheld as constitutional, as Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal concluded in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Hurst, another case in which we filed a brief.
Our 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 found. 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.
Despite our best efforts, on 5/28/08, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act cannot be applied retroactively to defeat causes of action already accrued and in litigation. The court reasoned that applying the statute retroactively would adversely affect the vested rights of plaintiffs, since before the statute was enacted Florida law had recognized a cause of action for damages arising from the disease of asbestosis without any permanent impairment or the presence of cancer.