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.
This isn’t just about legal technicalities; it’s about New Yorkers’ livelihoods and ability to make ends meet.
Plaintiff-friendly courts tilt the scales of justice at will.
Report Reveals Ongoing Crisis and Urgent Need for Reform
Evolution in Legal Landscape and Emerging Challenges Highlighted
St. Louis’ Legal Woes Exposed as Trial Lawyer Contributions Stall Reform
From Coasts to Courts, State Struggles Under Weight of Judicial Hellholes® Title