FREE ESSAY ON WHY ARE ASBESTOS REGULATIONS IMPORTANT?

WHY ARE ASBESTOS REGULATIONS IMPORTANT?

Why are asbestos regulations important?
EPA estimates that asbestos fibers contribute to 7,500 deaths per year in the United
States. Most uses of asbestos have been banned since asbestos was found to cause lung
cancer and other respiratory diseases in humans. However, it is estimated that 30 million
tons of asbestos were used in thousands of building products since the late 1800s.
Asbestos-containing building materials are commonly found in buildings constructed prior
to the mid-1970s. The asbestos regulations currently in place are necessary to ensure
that people are not exposed to airborne asbestos fibers when buildings are remodeled or
demolished.
What are the statutes and regulations and to whom do they apply?
The regulations apply to remodeling or demolition projects which occur in public or
commercial buildings. Private residences and apartment buildings with four or fewer
dwellings are exempt from the regulations. Any project which is subject to these
regulations requires a notification to the department within 10 working days prior to the
start of the project.
Respondent Fibreboard Corporation, an asbestos manufacturer, was locked in litigation for
decades. Plaintiffs filed a stream of personal injury claims against it, swelling
throughout the 1980's and 1990's to thousands of claims for compensatory damages each
year. Fibreboard engaged in litigation with its insurers, respondent Continental Casualty
Company and respondent Pacific Indemnity Company, over insurance coverage for the
personal injury claims. In 1990, a California trial court ruled against Continental and
Pacific, and the insurers appealed. At around the same time, Fibreboard approached a
group of asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers, offering to discuss a "global settlement" of
Fibreboard's asbestos liability. Negotiations at one point led to the settlement of some
45,000 pending claims, and the parties eventually agreed upon $1.535 billion as the key
term of a "Global Settlement Agreement." Of this sum, $1.525 billion would come from
Continental and Pacific, which had joined the negotiations, while Fibreboard would
contribute $10 million, all but $500,000 of it from other insurance proceeds. At
plaintiffs' counsels' insistence, Fibreboard and its insurers then reached a backup
settlement of the coverage dispute in the "Trilateral Settlement Agreement," under which
the insurers agreed to provide Fibreboard with $2 billion to defend against asbestos
claimants and pay the winners, should the Global Settlement Agreement fail to win court
approval. Subsequently, a group of named plaintiffs filed the present action in Federal
District Court, seeking certification for settlement purposes of a mandatory class that
comprised three groups-claimants who had not yet sued Fibreboard, those who had dismissed
such claims and retained the right to sue in the future, and relatives of class
members-but excluded claimants who had actions pending against Fibreboard or who had
filed and, for negotiated value, dismissed such claims, and whose only retained right is
to sue Fibreboard upon development of an asbestos-related malignancy. The District Court
allowed petitioners and other objectors to intervene, held a fairness hearing under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), ruled that the threshold Rule 23(a) numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements were met, and
certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). In response to intervenors' objections that
the absence of a "limited fund" precluded Rule 23(b)(1)(B) certification, the District
Court ruled that both the disputed insurance asset liquidated by the $1.535 billion
global settlement, and, alternatively, the sum of the value of Fibreboard plus the value
of its insurance coverage, as measured by the insurance funds' settlement value, were
relevant "limited funds." The Fifth Circuit affirmed both as to class certification and
adequacy of settlement. Agreeing with the District Court's application of Rule 23(a), the
Court of Appeals found, inter alia, that there were no conflicts of interest sufficiently
serious to undermine the adequacy of class counsel's representation. As to Rule
23(b)(1)(B), the court approved the class certification on a "limited fund" rationale
based on the threat to other class members' ability to receive full payment from
Fibreboard's limited assets. This Court then decided Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,
521 U.S. 591, vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remanded for further
consideration in light of that decision. The Fifth Circuit again affirmed the District
Court's judgment on remand.
Held: