HB 2365 -- ASBESTOS AND SILICA CLAIMS PRIORITIES ACT

SPONSOR:  Pratt

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Special Committee on
Workforce Development and Workplace Safety by a vote of 7 to 5.

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

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

(2)  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;

(3)  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;

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

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

(6)  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;

(7)  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;

(8)  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;

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

(10)  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 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2011.  No impact on
Other State Funds in FY 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2011.

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.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Pratt; Mark Behrens,
American Legislative Exchange Council; Missouri Chamber of
Commerce and Industry; Missouri Insurance Coalition; and
Associated Industries of Missouri.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that the bill attempts
to solve a problem that does not exist in Missouri.  It will make
claims for those individuals with verifiable asbestos- and
silica-related problems more difficult.  The bill puts numerous
obstacles in the way of cancer cases that would otherwise be
brought against asbestos companies.

Testifying against the bill were Mark Moreland, Missouri
Association of Trial Attorneys; United Steelworkers District 11;
and Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association.

Missouri House of Representatives
94th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session
Last Updated October 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm