High Court Ruling Stymies Asbestos Group

The case, Hopeman Brothers v. Acker, represents the second time this year that the Supreme Court has refused to stop an asbestos proceeding involving consolidated claims. The court previously rejected a similar petition in the case of Mobil v. Adkins.

Asbestos reform advocates argue that consolidation denies defendants of their due process rights, since it effectively denies defendants an adequate opportunity to challenge individual claims.

This essentially forces defendants into settlements, reform advocates say.

Mark Behrens, an attorney in the Washington office of Shook, Hardy and Bacon, which represents the Coalition for Asbestos Justice, said the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to stop these proceedings puts more burden on Congress to do something on asbestos litigation.

It is always possible, Mr. Behrens said, that after the Hopeman Brothers or Mobil case has gone through the entire trial and appeal process, the Supreme Court may agree to a review.

But that is not a short-term solution, he said, noting that this could take a year or more.

In a brief filed in the Hopeman case, the Coalition said that Supreme Court inaction 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.

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

Members of the Coalition include ACE-USA, Chubb, CNA, Fireman's Fund, Hartford, Argonaut, General Cologne Re, Liberty Mutual, St. Paul and Great American.