Frivolous asbestos litigation is crippling our judicial system and large swaths of our economy.  Across the country, hundreds of thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed, 8,400 companies are defending themselves, 75 companies have been bankrupted by a flood of frivolous claims, tens of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs, and retirement savings have been eviscerated. 

Worse, an estimated 90% of these cases are filed people who aren't even sick, but merely claim some exposure to asbestos with no symptoms.  That's not how the system should work, and people who are genuinely sick receive little or no compensation while trial lawyers and symptom-free plaintiffs hit the jackpot.  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this crisis and pleaded with Congress to resolve it on three separate occasions over the past fifteen years. 

Fortunately, the tide is finally turning. 

The Michigan Supreme Court has issued an order, effective immediately, that prohibits "bundling" of asbestos lawsuits.  "Bundling" refers to a strategy by which trial attorneys combine thousands of individual claims, both legitimate and illegitimate, to frighten businesses into settlement rather than pay crippling litigation costs to establish their ultimate innocence. 

The Michigan Supreme Court's order, which follows a three-year study addressing asbestos abuse, went so far as to recognize that bundling cynically aims "to maximize the number of cases settled" by intimidating companies against fighting even the most frivolous claims.  As a result of the new order, "each case should be decided on its own merits," and claimants will have to establish an actual illness and responsible defendant.  What a concept. 

Trial attorneys, who stand to lose this self-perpetuating, get-rich-quick asbestos racket, have naturally reacted hysterically.  If there was any doubt as to the merit of the order, that should eliminate it. 

Other courts are also beginning to address this broken system.  For example, some states have created inactive court dockets to deposit claims by currently healthy plaintiffs who allege contact with asbestos, but who show no signs whatsoever of injury.  As another example, federal bankruptcy courts are targeting "prepackage" claims, under which plaintiffs' attorneys and targeted companies prearrange to enrich attorneys and leave the targeted companies' insurance providers holding the bag. 

But particular credit must go to U.S. District Court Judge Janis Graham Jack (S.D. Texas), a former nurse who detected asbestos litigation abuse.  In a recent 249-page opinion, Judge Jack blasted the asbestos-claim enterprise and even used the term "fraud."  As a consequence, a grand jury is now investigating screening companies and doctors, with possible criminal charges.  Her leadership has spearheaded a growing nationwide recognition of this out-of-control travesty, and opened the door to investigation of millions of other potentially illegitimate claims. 

While these asbestos reform efforts are to be applauded, the most effective tool to finally end asbestos litigation abuse and turn out the lights on the trial lawyers' gravy train lies in the U.S. Senate's bipartisan Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act ("FAIR" Act). 

After all, positive reform at the state level oftentimes simply drives plaintiffs' attorneys to other states in pursuit of jackpot juries. 

To alleviate this option, the FAIR Act would create a nationwide private trust-fund system.  Under this innovative proposal, asbestos claims would be removed from an already-swamped court system in favor of a privately funded, no-fault system that would compensate only truly sick victims. 

Perhaps most important, the legislation mandates strict medical criteria by which claimants must establish injury, thereby eliminating speculative claims now clogging the judicial system and diluting amounts available to legitimate victims.  Under the current system, real victims often don't live to see compensation, because federal and state courts can't process the flood of asbestos claims.  To enforce these standards, moreover, the bill contains strong anti-fraud provisions that make it a felony to file a frivolous or fraudulent claim. 

After establishing their illness, victims would be compensated through a no-fault administrative process, thereby eliminating the need to hire an attorney whose interests often lie more toward filing lawsuits and obtaining lucrative contingency fees than achieving just compensation for the client. 

Asbestos litigation would thus be removed from the tort system and dry up trial lawyers' easy source of wealth, which explains why they oppose it so frantically. 

To fund this system, private insurance companies and defendant corporations would contribute $140 billion to a privately-financed trust on a pro rata basis.  The Congressional Budget Office has twice certified this amount as sufficient to compensate legitimate claims, but taxpayers would not be on the hook even if that proved inadequate.  Rather, any unsatisfied claims by legitimate victims would proceed to the courts, which would not be as saturated with frivolous claims as they now are. 

Armed services veterans who are currently unable to obtain compensation because of government immunity against lawsuit would also finally receive justice. 

This legislation is long overdue, and necessary to protect legitimately injured victims, unclog our courts, and protect our businesses and jobs.  Americans must therefore contact their Senators and demand that they bring the FAIR Act to a floor vote.  Only then can we finally resolve this decades-old abomination and force trial attorneys to find more legitimate sources of income.