Alabama's Top Court Throws Out Asbestos Case

The decision holds that Alabama law doesn't provide compensation for plaintiffs who have suffered no present injuries. It also shows the court's reluctance to stray from established principles of tort law and expand the scope of a defendant's liability, the Alliance said.

"This ruling is important because if the court ruled the other way, it would have opened a floodgate of additional litigation by individuals who had been exposed to asbestos but have no present manifestation of illnesses," Joyce Kraeger, a staff attorney for the Downers Grove, Ill.-based Alliance, told National Underwriter.

"This ruling might have persuasive power in other states, and convince other states to rule in a similar fashion," Ms. Kraeger added.

The suit in Alabama, Southern Bakeries Inc. v. Knipp, et al., was brought on by two employees at Birmingham, Ala.-based Southern Bakeries Inc., who were exposed to asbestos at a corporate facility in 1996.

Following their exposure, the plaintiffs filed a suit against Southern Bakeries, seeking compensation for emotional distress and mental anguish on the grounds that they were at a greater risk of developing lung cancer in the future due to their past exposure to asbestos.

But the latest court ruling will most likely mean the end of the road for this case, Ms. Kraeger predicted. "The court threw out this case because of the lack of evidence that plaintiffs really suffered emotional distress," she said.

Additionally, the decision reflects the court's belief that opening the courts for compensation for fear-of-future-diseases would be a dramatic change in the law and could create significant unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences, according to the Alliance.

"The court is going to hold plaintiffs to a pretty high standard. It's good for insurance companies because plaintiffs have to really prove their cases in order to collect their damages for their injuries," Ms. Kraeger said.