Insurers have joined a Michigan Supreme Court case challengingexpert witness testimony that led to an asbestos injury settlementfor a Detroit man who died of mesothelioma.

In a friend-of-court brief they and other business groups arguethat courts should not allow a “handful of experts” espousing“speculative opinions” to expand the scope of those who win moneydamages from alleged exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

The witness in the case at issue, they contended, ignoredmedical studies and “accepted science.”

Insurers, whose names are on the brief, include ACE-USACompanies; Chubb & Son, a division of Federal InsuranceCompany; CNA service mark companies; Fireman's Fund InsuranceCompany; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; and the Great AmericanInsurance Company, as well as the Property Casualty InsurersAssociation of America and the American Insurance Association.

According to the brief, the defendants Daimler Chrysler Corp.,and a variety of other manufacturers, agreed to two settlements onefor Bernie Mae Chapin, the widow of Philip Chapin, and a second forMr. Chapin that is contingent on an appellate court determiningthat the plaintiff's expert witness Dr. Richard Lemen is qualifiedto testify.

Mr. Chapin, a mechanic, was diagnosed with mesothelioma at age60 after 45 years working as an auto mechanic whose job includedgrinding brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos,according to court filings.

His lawyers claimed in the family's complaint that his diseasewas caused by exposure to asbestos–a claim supported by Dr. Lemen,who testified that even low-dose occupational exposure to asbestoscauses mesothelioma.

According to the brief, the doctor made the claim in two lowercourts “that virtually any occupational exposure to asbestos causesdisease.”

The case went to trial in 2004 after Mr. Chapin died and asettlement was agreed on contingent on the appellate courtdetermination as to Dr. Lemen's qualifications.

The appeals court supported the lower court in allowing Dr.Lemen to testify, saying the trial judge did not abuse hisdiscretion in determining the qualifications of an expert witness.“We hold today that the trial court's role as gatekeeper does notrequire it to search for absolute truth, to admit only uncontestedevidence, or to resolve genuine scientific disputes,” according tothat decision.

In asking the State Supreme Court to overturn the case, thebrief argued, “Unless and until trial judges take a serious look atthe lack of science supporting these cases, courts will continue tobe flooded with cases alleging that inconsequential low-doseexposures cause asbestos disease.

“Even more defendants will unnecessarily succumb to thefinancial pressure already rampant in asbestos litigation,” thebrief added.

The brief was submitted by the law firm of Shook, Hardy &Bacon, L.L.P., in Kansas City, with the Washington office of Shook,Hardy serving of counsel.

It was filed by a group called the Coalition for LitigationJustice, which also includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, theNational Association of Manufacturers and the American Tort ReformAssociation.

The brief argued that in allowing Dr. Lemen to testify the lowercourts “rejected what scientific texts and courts elsewhere haverepeatedly established as the primary and by far most probativesource of causation evidence–epidemiology.”

According to the brief, “more than 17 published epidemiologystudies have uniformly rejected the notion that automobile mechanicexposures cause mesothelioma.”

The brief added, “In a startling departure from acceptedscience, the courts below decided that these occupation-specificepidemiology studies could not 'trump' far less conclusive evidencelike animal studies, case reports and government warnings relied onby Dr. Lemen.”

Second, the brief said, “the courts below accepted a reducedcausation standard for asbestos cases–the unproven assertion by Dr.Lemen that virtually any occupational exposure to asbestos causesdisease.”