|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
After the Supreme Court ruled that the proposed settlement class should be decertified, the next opportunity for a mass settlement was through legislative action. There have been several attempts at legislative action to facilitate the resolution of asbestos claims, but none have received the support necessary to become law. These attempts are the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999[3], the Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000[4], the Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003[5], and the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act of 2006[6]. The FAIR act was sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, was introduced in the Senate and was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was never voted on by the Senate. Since the Supreme Court decision in Windsor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has approached MDL 875 under a “one plaintiff, one claim” policy. Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12, the court has initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy in setting cases for settlement conferences, motion hearings and trials. Presiding Judge Robreno has devised further procedures for resolving these actions which will commence in January, 2009. The procedures can be found by clicking on the links above. |
|
[1]
Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 618 (3rd Cir. 1996). [2] See Id. at 619. [3] S. 758, 106th Cong. (1999). [4] H.R. 1283, 106th Cong. (2000). [5] S. 413, 108th Cong. (2003). [6] S. 3274. 109th Cong. (2006). |
|
PLEASE NOTE Judicial Disclosure Notice from Presiding Judge Eduardo C. Robreno. |
