Asbestos and the law (United States)
[11] On January 12, 2012, the Supreme Court of California also decided in favor of the defense in O'Neil v. Crane Co.[12] Another area of dispute remains the so-called chrysotile-defense.
As 95% of the products used in the United States historically were mostly chrysotile, this claim is widely disputed by health officials and medical professionals.
[13] The World Health Organization recognizes that exposure to all types of asbestos fibers, including chrysotile, can cause cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovary, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.
[14] As of March 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized regulations banning imports of chrysotile asbestos (effective immediately) due to its link to lung cancer and mesothelioma.
[15] The long phase-out period was a result of a strong lobby by Olin Corporation, a major chemical manufacturer, as well as trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council.
[21] At the same time, these trusts may permit larger numbers of claimants to receive some kind of compensation, even if greatly reduced from potential recoveries in the tort system.
The federal Medicare Secondary Payer law imposes penalties for paying settlements directly to claimants without repaying the government for medical costs covered under the same programs under the legal doctrine of subrogation.
[20] In late 2016, attorneys general from 13 states sent demand letters to bankruptcy trusts for Armstrong World Industries, Babcock & Wilcox, DII, and Owens Corning.
The purpose of the demand letters was to determine if the funds are reimbursing states for medical treatment received under Medicaid and Medicare.
[23] The amount of compensation recovered by an injured plaintiff may depend on whether evidence of exposure to products from bankrupt firms is introduced at trial.
[23] Researchers from RAND Corporation found that if a company filed for bankruptcy plaintiffs claimed exposure to their products in interrogatories and depositions at significantly reduced rates.
[24] In the 2004 case of Stoeckler v. American Oil Co.[25] the defendants discovered that the plaintiff did not disclose trust claims only three days after the start of the trial, resulting in the re-opening of discovery.
[27] Asbestos is not part of an ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) E 1527-05 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)[citation needed].
The baseline survey provides the buyer with sufficient information on presumed asbestos at the facility, often which leads to reduction in the assessed value of the building (due primarily to forthcoming abatement costs).
Asbestos is not a material covered under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ) innocent purchaser defense.
In 1988, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued regulations requiring certain U.S. companies to report the asbestos used in their products.
On April 26, 2005, Philip J. Landrigan, professor and chair of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City,[30] testified before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary against this proposed legislation.
[31] This version would have also expanded eligible claimants to people exposed to asbestos from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and to construction debris in hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
[34] The same year Oklahoma passed a similar law called The Personal Injury Trust Fund Transparency Act.
[41] The Clean Air Act requires that asbestos be wetted during removal and strictly contained, and that workers wear safety gear and masks.
In this case a federal appeals court ruled that an insulation installer from Texas could sue asbestos manufactures for failure to warn.
Court documents show that the corporation had a long history of hiding evidence of the ill effects of asbestos from its workers and the public.
[59][60] A federal grand jury indicted W. R. Grace and Company and seven top executives on February 5, 2005, for its operations of a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana.
[43][61] On June 8, 2006, a federal judge dismissed the conspiracy charge of "knowing endangerment" because some of the defendant officials had left the company before the five-year statute of limitations[clarification needed] had begun to run.
The RICO counts included obstruction of justice, money laundering, mail fraud and bid rigging, all related to the asbestos cleanup.
[63] On January 11, 2006, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., two of its employees, and a contractor were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that they violated safety standards while removing asbestos from pipes in Lemon Grove, California.
