Miscellaneous
Asbestos Litigation Reform – H.B. 328
Utah – 2023
Address over-naming in asbestos cases and requires plaintiffs with nonmalignant conditions to demonstrate impairment pursuant to objective medical criteria. Within twenty-one days after the day on which the first answer is filed in response to the plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff must provide the parties with a sworn declaration stating the evidence providing the basis for each claim against each defendant and include supporting documentation. The court, on motion by a defendant, shall dismiss a plaintiff’s asbestos action without prejudice as to any defendant whose product or premises is not identified in the required disclosures. The court may not dismiss a plaintiff’s asbestos claim upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff. In addition, within ninety days after the day on which the plaintiff files a complaint in an asbestos action alleging a nonmalignant condition, the plaintiff must file a detailed narrative medical report and diagnosis, signed under oath by a qualified physician and accompanied by supporting test results, constituting prima facie evidence that the exposed individual has a physical impairment for which exposure to asbestos was a substantial contributing factor.