Asbestos and the law

Template:Long NPOV You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Care should be taken to distinguish between several forms of relevant diseases. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), these may defined as:-

asbestosis (which is a slowly developing fibrosis of the lung caused by the inhalation of high concentrations of asbestos dust and/or long exposure),

lung cancer, or “bronchial carcinoma” which can result from occupational exposures to certain substances, including asbestos fibres (even without co-existing asbestosis) and,

mesothelioma which is a malignant tumour of the pleura or peritoneum.

The latter is normally a very rare type of cancer (typically less than 0.04% of all deaths in the general population). A higher incidence of mesothelioma has nearly always been related to the inhalation of mineral fibres, and in the majority of cases to occupational asbestos exposure.

In order to not present an over-long article here, currently only specific examples regarding the situation in Britain and the USA are included. (links to resources regarding the situation in other countries are listed below).

The British Government's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has promoted rigorous controls on asbestos handling, since their statistics indicate that at least 3500 people in Great Britain die each year from mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer as a result of past exposure to asbestos. Furthermore, this research has led to the prediction that annual numbers of deaths will go on rising into the next decade.

Other UK sources TUC (UK) report higher figures, concluding that around 5,000 people die each year in Great Britain from mesothelioma and asbestos related lung cancer, which equates to about 13 people per day.

The mineral (asbestos) has now been banned in all of the leading European countries, and the year 2005 is the deadline for bans by countries in the European Union. Having virtually no internal market for asbestos, Canada (one of the world's largest producers) exports 97 percent of all asbestos mined (mostly to Asia).

Though there is still no scientific consensus as to whether there does indeed exist a threshold of exposure to asbestos below which a person is at zero risk of developing mesothelioma, it has been reliably reported [1] that there is evidence from epidemiological studies of asbestos exposed groups that any such threshold for mesothelioma must be at a very low level. The HSE does not assume that such a threshold exist, since they consider that it cannot currently be quantified for practical purposes.

It is generally well-accepted that mesothelioma is almost always associated with asbestos exposure. The fact that, in such cases, the disease usually only occurs between 20-40 years after exposure to asbestos, however, has lead to very real difficulties in unambiguous quantitative diagnoses and to much controversy regarding compensation and liability disputes. (It has a very poor prognosis, with most patients dying within 2-4 years of diagnosis)

Rightly or wrongly, financial settlements have been juridically enforced at a level which has bankrupt some industrial companies and threatened some of the World's largest insurance companies (BBC report on Lloyds). Growing disputes are forseen for the coming decades as current trends indicate that the rate at which people are diagnosed with the disease will most probably increase very significantly.

The RAND Institute for Civil Justice has recognized that asbestos litigation is the longest running mass tort in U.S. history. Recent sharp increases have been confirmed in the rate of filing asbestos claims in the United States, as have concommitant increases in the number and types of firms named as defendants, and also an escalation in the costs of the litigation to these defendants. (Analysts have estimated that the total costs of asbestos litigation in the USA alone will eventually reach $200 billion,). Research supported by RAND [2] highlights questions as to whether compensation is really distributed fairly among claimants and in proportion to their true need, and, furthermore, whether the actual responsibility for paying compensation is being allocated justly among defendants and in proportion to their percieved and/or proven degree of culpability.

The continuing controversy over asbestos-related liability isssues is reflected by recent press reports on the topic:-

In her article "Equitas warns on asbestosis" of 22/06/2002, Helen Dunne, The British Daily Telegraph's Associate City Editor reported; "Equitas, the reinsurance vehicle which assumed the liabilities that once threatened to overwhelm Lloyd's of London, warned yesterday that asbestosis claims were the "greatest single threat" to its existence.", and "Equitas increased gross undiscounted provisions for future asbestosis claims by £3.2 billion in the two years ending March 2001, but has decided that further reserves this year are unnecessary.". This could be considered to indicate that appropriate financial previsions have now been made to address the issue, in this case (though this is not yet universally accepted).

A more recent article reports, "Amicus, Britain's biggest private sector union, will today, 14/12/04, condemn insurers who are attempting to shirk their responsibility to compensate up to 75% of asbestos claims in a High Court challenge. Insurers are challenging the right for workers exposed to asbestos to claim compensation for pleural plaques, a calcification of the lungs that can be caused by exposure to asbestos. There are on average 14,000 pleural plaques cases a year. The test case being summed up in the High Court today involving Amicus members could have far reaching consequences for thousands of workers who have been exposed to asbestos over the past 50 years". This outlines the continuing discontent in some sectors of British society.

In the USA, key asbestos lawsuits have included; Bell v. Dresser Industries Inc., Borel v. Fibreboard Corporation, and Waters v. W. R. Grace. More information on these and other, asbestos-related issues in the USA are reviewed on the Asbestos Resouce Center website.

Some idea of the scale of the American problem is indicated by the fact that, regarding just one of many cases, on January 7, 1991 Eagle-Picher Industries also sought bankruptcy protection by filing Chapter 11 proceedings in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Cincinnati. The company cited in its bankruptcy petition past payments totalling $600 million issued to 65,000 asbestos claimants and the inability to pay an additional $45 million in negotiated settlements.

External Links

Asbestos and the law

See also

External Links