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.
ATRA Reiterates Support for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Use to Address Mass Tort Litigation, Urges Meaningful Dialogue Amid Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
The lack of oversight and transparency around third-party litigation funding threatens the integrity of our legal system
Together, let’s forge a legal landscape that makes equitable access to justice a living reality for all Georgians.
This is an opportunity to reassess the practices and regulations surrounding private-attorney contracting and to enact reforms that promote fairness, transparency and value for taxpayer dollars.
Allowing the company to continue the bankruptcy process will help ensure equitable and efficient resolution in complex mass tort claims