High Court Asked To Bar Asbestos Consolidations

The brief was filed by the Coalition for Asbestos Justice, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Tort Reform Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, all of Washington.

The Coalition for Asbestos Justice is an insurance industry group including ACE-USA, Chubb, CNA, Fireman's Fund, Hartford, Argonaut, General Cologne Re, Liberty Mutual, St. Paul and Great American.

The brief notes that the high court recently declined to hear a West Virginia case, Mobil v. Adkins, in which several thousand unrelated asbestos claims were consolidated.

The Coalition filed a brief in that case saying that the massive West Virginia trial would not provide defendants with an adequate opportunity to challenge the claims, and that the plan would essentially force defendants to settle.

"Unfortunately, the Coalition was correct," the brief in the Hopeman case says.

"Almost immediately after this court (the U.S. Supreme Court) declined to stay the trial or grant certiorari to review the West Virginia trial plan, scores of defendants were forced to settle," the brief says.

This is a model of what is likely to happen in the Hopeman case if the high court again refuses to hear the case, the brief argues.

Moreover, the brief says, it may send a message to other state courts that if they face an overwhelming number of asbestos cases, it is permissible to ignore the law and pressure defendants to settle claims.

"Not only is this practice unconstitutional, it is bad public policy and should not be tolerated by this court," the brief says.

In the Hopeman case, the Supreme Court of Virginia approved a mass trial of nearly 1,300 asbestos-related lawsuits, despite the absence of any finding by the trial court that the claims are sufficiently "common" to be consolidated.

While some 35 defendants were named in the original action, at least 15 have filed for bankruptcy since the litigation began, according to the petition filed by Hopeman.

Several other defendants have settled rather than face the "Armageddon scenario" posed by mass consolidation, the petition says.

At present, the petition says, only nine defendants remain.

The petition says that Virginia trial court ordered the mass consolidation despite a finding that to do so would indeed prejudice the rights of the parties to a fair trial.

This was upheld by the Supreme Court of Virginia, the petition says.

"The Supreme Court of Virginia, in essence, has held that it has no power to and is not required to protect against a bold face denial of due process," the petition says.