HCS HB 512 -- ASBESTOS AND SILICA CLAIMS PRIORITIES ACT

SPONSOR:  Pratt

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Judiciary
by a vote of 6 to 5.

This substitute establishes the Asbestos and Silica Claims
Priorities Act.  In its main provisions, the substitute:

(1)  Defines "claimant," "asbestos claim," "asbestosis," "silica
claim," "silicosis," and "qualified physician";

(2)  Requires the exposure of asbestos or silica to be a
substantial factor to the physical impairment of the exposed
person;

(3)  Disallows asbestos- or silica-related claims brought on
behalf of a class or group except in claims relating to the
exposed person and members of his or her household;

(4)  Requires a tort action alleging an asbestos claim based upon
the nonmalignant condition of an exposed person to show that the
exposed person has a physical impairment where exposure to the
defendant's asbestos is a substantial factor to the physical
impairment;

(5)  Requires that a detailed narrative medical report and
diagnosis by a qualified physician be included on behalf of a
plaintiff's asbestos- or silica-related claim;

(6)  Specifies that no prima facie showing is required for any
asbestos claim related to alleged mesothelioma;

(7)  Specifies that any evidence relating to the prima facie
showing of physical impairment related to the defendant's
asbestos or silica exposure will not be conclusive as to the
liability of the defendant;

(8)  Requires evidence relating to physical impairment to comply
with technical recommendations for examinations, testing
procedures, quality assurance, quality control, and equipment
incorporated in the American Medical Association's Guides to the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment;

(9)  Requires evidence verifying that the diagnosing, qualified
physician has taken a detailed medical and smoking history from
the exposed person, including a thorough review of the exposed
person's past and present medical problems and the most probable
cause;

(10)  Requires specific medical testing procedures for a showing
of physical impairment; and

(11)  Specifies that an asbestos- or silica-related claim arising
out of a nonmalignant condition is a distinct cause of action
from a claim for an asbestos- or silica-related cancer.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Income on General Revenue Fund of Less
than $40,000 in FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010.  No impact on
Other State Funds in FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that asbestos litigation in the
United States has become a crisis.  Lawsuits have increased in
the last several years; and because of the number of lawsuits,
the potential for fraud is growing.  Because of the rate of cases
filed, many employers have been forced into bankruptcy, and
payments to those with valid claims are threatened.  The vast
majority of claims filed are by claimants who are not currently
impaired and likely never will be.  Many attorneys have developed
screening programs that are used to generate asbestos claims.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Pratt; Robert Glenn;
Mark Behrens; Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Missouri
Insurance Coalition; Harry Gallagher, Property and Casualty
Insurance Association of America; Missouri Merchants and
Manufacturers Association; Associated Builders and Contractors,
Heart of America Chapter; Associated Industries of Missouri; and
Brad James.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that there is no
asbestos claim crisis in Missouri.  Evidence shows that the
number of claims filed are decreasing.  In 2005, 119 claims were
filed; in 2006, 43 claims were filed and only 34 claims in 2007.
The bill attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist in
Missouri.  It will make claims for those individuals with
verifiable problems more difficult.  Since attorneys cannot pay
for an expert medical opinion in an asbestos or silica claim, the
requirement to obtain a narrative medical history from a
physician is difficult to satisfy.  The bill puts numerous
obstacles in the way of cancer cases that would otherwise be
brought against asbestos companies.

Testifying against the bill were Missouri Association of Trial
Attorneys; United Steelworkers District 11; and Missouri AFL-CIO.

Missouri House of Representatives
94th General Assembly, 1st Regular Session
Last Updated July 25, 2007 at 11:19 am