From the 1970s—when the first wave of asbestosis-related lawsuits began—through the end of 2000, more than 600,000 people filed asbestosis -related claims. The following facts further illustrate the impact of asbestosis claims:

• Over 6,000 companies have been named as defendants in asbestosis litigation, and the number of asbestos-related corporate bankruptcies continues to rise.
• According to estimates, claims filed represent no more than 50 percent, and perhaps as few as 20 percent, of eventual claimants.
• The total cost of all asbestosis-related claims is expected to range from $200 to $265 billion.

In recent years, pressure to "solve the asbestos problem" has mounted. These efforts have led not to greater restrictions on asbestos, but rather to a stricter burden of proof for claimants with asbestosis.

Search for a Solution

One way in which insurance companies and legislators have tried to stem the tide of complaints and the amount of compensation awarded is by reducing the number of claims filed by those with asbestosis and other nonmalignant, asbestos-related disorders. Claimants must furnish proof that their exposure to asbestos caused physical impairment or bodily injury. In order to meet that standard, claimants in many cases must provide evidence that:

• asbestos largely caused their asbestosis, and
• no other factors–such as smoking, for example–contributed more than asbestos to their asbestosis.

Qualifying Pathological Proof of Asbestosis

Typically, qualifying proof of injury due to asbestosis includes:

• a statement by a board-certified pathologist that a certain pattern of scarring exists and the patient has a certain level of respiratory impairment
• a chest x-ray that shows evidence of asbestosis that meets or exceeds prescribed limits

A physician's statement that a victim’s condition is merely "consistent with exposure to asbestos" is not likely to meet the standard of proof of asbestosis.

Resources

http://rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB397/DB397.pdf

Woellert, Lorraine. "The Asbestos Mess: There Is A Way Out; Congress first should limit the right to sue to those who are already sick." Business Week 3929 (April 18, 2005)

"Evidence Of Asbestosis Did Not Compel An Award For Benefits." Connecticut Law Tribune (Feb 4, 2008): NA.

Hofmann, Mark A. "Court overturns asbestos award for failure to prove extent of exposure. (News)(Brief article)." Business Insurance 41.25 (June 18, 2007): 28.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2004/09/14/45833.htm

Mcleod, Douglas. "Asbestos claims standards raised; London insurers to require proof of illness to curb abuses." Business Insurance 35 (May 7, 2001): 1.

http://www.mesotheliomausa.com/news/2002-11-03.php