Asbestos Attorney: Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005

Your Asbestos Attorney provides you with House Resolution 1360: Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005. If you have been injured by Asbestos, this document may help you understand your Asbestos lawsuit. To find out if you have a claim, use our FREE Asbestos Case Evaluator.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) A great number of Americans have been exposed to forms of asbestos that can have devastating health effects.

(2) Various injuries can be caused by exposure to some forms of asbestos, including pleural disease and some forms of cancer.

(3) The injuries caused by asbestos can have latency periods of up to 40 years, and even limited exposure to some forms of asbestos may result in injury in some cases.

(4) Asbestos litigation has had a significant detrimental effect on the country's economy, driving companies into bankruptcy, diverting resources from those who are truly sick, and endangering jobs and pensions.

(5) The scope of the asbestos litigation crisis cuts across every State and virtually every industry.

(6) The United States Supreme Court has recognized that Congress must act to create a more rational asbestos claims system. In 1991, a Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation, appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, found that the `ultimate solution should be legislation recognizing the national proportions of the problem . . . and creating a national asbestos dispute resolution scheme . . .'. The Court found in 1997 in Amchem Products Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 595 (1997), that `[t]he argument is sensibly made that a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure.' In 1999, the Court in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 819, 821 (1999), found that the `elephantine mass of asbestos cases . . . defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation.' That finding was again recognized in 2003 by the Court in Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers, 123 S.Ct. 1210 (2003).

(7) This crisis, and its significant effect on the health and welfare of the people of the United States, on interstate and foreign commerce, and on the bankruptcy system, compels Congress to exercise its power to regulate interstate commerce and create this legislative solution in the form of a national asbestos injury claims resolution program to supersede all existing methods to compensate those injured by asbestos, except as specified in this Act.

(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to--

(1) create a privately funded, publicly administered fund to provide the necessary resources for a fair and efficient system to resolve asbestos injury claims that will provide compensation for legitimate present and future claimants of asbestos exposure as provided in this Act;

(2) provide compensation to those present and future victims based on the severity of their injuries, while establishing a system flexible enough to accommodate individuals whose conditions worsens;

(3) relieve the Federal and State courts of the burden of the asbestos litigation; and

(4) increase economic stability by resolving the asbestos litigation crisis that has bankrupted companies with asbestos liability, diverted resources from the truly sick, and endangered jobs and pensions.