On 3/16/09 the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Tennessee Court of Appeals that could lead to a surge in expensive, unwarranted asbestos lawsuits against manufacturers. The Tennessee court ruled that asbestos plaintiffs no longer need to demonstrate that their fear about incurring injury or illness from asbestos exposure is “genuine and serious,” contradicting previous Supreme Court rulings. In this particular case, the state court awarded the claimant $5 million in pain and suffering based on thin evidence of any genuine fear.
Our brief urged the Court to preserve its carefully constructed guidelines related to asbestos litigation and to avoid exposing defendants to “unlimited and unpredictable liability.” The core issue in this case is the flood of specious claims of injury from asbestos exposure filed by individuals who have no physical evidence of such injury. The sheer volume of these claims has created backlogs in many courts and exhausted the resources of defendants, thus inhibiting those with actual injury from receiving timely and appropriate compensation.
On June 1, 2009, the Court ruled 7 to 2 that the jury should have been given an instruction to find liability only if the plaintiff's fear of getting cancer was genuine and serious. Juries, especially in emotional cases, should be given clear guidance on the law to provide the proper balance between plaintiffs and defendants. This is an important decision that prevents state courts from neglecting the rights of business to fair trials.