For decades, claimants have sued over alleged injuries from exposure to silica, asbestos, mold or lead paint. Eye-popping verdict amounts in such cases garner media attention, such as the $250 million award for a 70-year-old mesothelioma plaintiff in Madison County, Ill., in 2003 or the $32 million jury verdict for mold claims in Texas in 2001.

Although the total amount ultimately paid to the plaintiffs in these cases was much lower than the verdict amount (due to post-verdict settlements), the publicity alarms had already rung.

While new types of mass tort claims are brought (for alleged injuries relating to ephedra, Vioxx and even obesity), many asbestos, silica, mold and lead paint claims continue to be filed or remain pending. Some of these “familiar” claims may evolve, reflecting a changing legal and public policy landscape. During the past year, increased media, court and congressional attention has focused on the fraud allegedly associated with many mass screenings in asbestos and silica cases.

Recommended For You

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader

Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:

  • Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
  • Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
  • Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
  • Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
NOT FOR REPRINT

© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more inforrmation visit Asset & Logo Licensing.