Florida Supreme Court Invalidates Asbestos Litigation Fix
The Florida Supreme Court in American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak has invalidated legislation enacted by the legislature in 2005 designed to reduce asbestos related litigation in Florida. The legislature enacted the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act to make significant changes to the cause of action for damages relating to exposure to asbestos. The Fourth District Court of Appeal below held that the Act is unconstitutional. However, it certified by conflict with a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal.
Before the legislature passed the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act, plaintiffs filed actions for damages based on various degrees of asbestosis. Plaintiffs alleged in these actions that it was only necessary for them to show they had suffered an injury from an asbestos-related disease. However, under the Act, a claimant bringing an action for damages for exposure to asbestos was required to plead and prvode an existing malignancy or actual physical impairment for which asbestos exposure was a substantial contributing factor. The crux of the constitutional challenge was plaintiffs’ assertion that the act took away a personal right in a cause of action for money damages arising from exposure to asbestos even when their injuries had not yet become malignant or caused physical impairment.
When the legislature enacted the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act, it set forth as a reason for the legislation to give priority to “true” victims of asbestos, meaning those claimants who could demonstrate actual physical impairment. The Supreme Court considered whether the legislature’s effort to restrict other causes of action would withstand scrutiny under due process analysis. The Supreme Court recognized that a cause of action is a form of property protected by the Due Process Clause.
Parties to the case argued over whether the claimants had a vested property interest in their rights to pursue actions for asbestos-related injuries. The Supreme Court found that they did. A cause of action for asbestos-related diseases accrues when the accumulated effects of the substance manifest in a way that supplies some evidence of the causal relationship to the manufactured product. The Court reasoned that Florida common law does not require an impairment or particular manifestation of an injury according to any arbitrarily adopted level before a cause of action accrues.
Once the Supreme Court determined that the claimants had vested causes of action, it next evaluated whether the Act could be applied retroactively to those causes of action. The Court applied the usual two-part test for this analysis– whether the legislature intended for the Act to apply retroactively, and if so whether retroactive application of the statute would violate constitutional principles. With respect to the Act, the legislature did intend for it to apply retroactively. The Supreme Court therefore concentrated on the constitutional analysis.
Although the Act indicated it was remedial in nature and did not impact vested rights, the Supreme Court did not defer to this conclusory statement. The Act created a requirement that never existed before in order to establish a cause of action. The Supreme Court therefore found that the Act indeed adversely affected vested rights (and in act destroyed vested rights). The Supreme Court then concluded that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act could not be constitutionally applied to the claimants.
The opinion was issued on July 8, 2011, but does not become final until the period for requesting rehearing has run and, if requested, a determination has been made.