Georgia's new, more stringent requirements for filing asbestos injury suits are not retroactive for cases already filed, the State Supreme Court has found.
In a ruling on several asbestos claims cases, the high court agreed with lower tribunals that applying the new law retroactively would affect the substantive rights of claimants by adding a new element to their claims that did not exist when they were originally filed.
"Prior to passage of the Act, in order to establish a claim for asbestos-related injuries, a plaintiff was required to show only that exposure to asbestos was a contributing factor in his or her medical condition," Justice Carol W. Hunstein noted in the court's opinion, which was unanimous.
Under the new law, claimants are required to show that asbestos exposure was a substantial contributing factor to their medical condition, which Justice Hunstein noted would place a heavier evidentiary burden on claimants.
Georgia case law has established that laws affecting the substantive rights of an individual, or that which creates rights, duties and obligations, can only be applied on a prospective basis, while procedural changes can be applied retroactively.
"Accordingly," Justice Hunstein said, "the provisions of the Act requiring appellees to produce evidence establishing that exposure to asbestos was a substantial contributing factor to their medical conditions affect appellees' substantive rights and cannot retroactively be applied to their claims."
The companies who made the appeal also argued that the trial courts involved could have, under Georgia law, separated out the "substantial" requirement while applying the rest of the new asbestos/silica exposure law.
However, Justice Hunstein explained in her decision that the law allows separating out a provision in applying a law only if the provision being removed is not central to the overall law, which she ruled was the case with the asbestos/silica exposure law.
"The legislature decided to include the requirement that asbestos plaintiffs produce evidence that exposure to asbestos was a substantial contributing factor in the exposed persons' medical conditions and to place further restrictions on the form of such evidence," she wrote. "This decision demonstrates a clear intent to limit actionable asbestos claims to those situations in which a greater level of causation can be shown."
The increased evidentiary requirements and limitations, she said, "are the heart of the act," and their removal would leave a statute that fails to meet the purpose for which it was intended.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.