More work needed on asbestos bill

Billings Gazette
Published May 17, 2005

The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to take up its latest version of an asbestos bill again Thursday. Details of this legislation remain in flux. Despite efforts by Sens. Max Baucus and Conrad Burns to get special coverage for Libby victims, it's uncertain that other senators will support better treatment for Libby when they see their own states' asbestos victims as equally deserving. Taking care of Libby Baucus initially succeeded in getting language in the bill that would guarantee Libby residents at least $400,000 per person in compensation for asbestos-caused illnesses. Baucus argues that Libby victims deserve special consideration because the tremolite asbestos that permeated their town is particularly lethal and has already caused many deaths and illnesses. But Burns has complained to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter that S.852 has been dramatically changed and, Burns said, would leave out approximately 80 percent of Libby claimants. An asbestos bill isn't good enough unless it assures people who have contracted serious illnesses from asbestos exposure that they will receive compensation as adequate as they would get through the court system. Furthermore, U.S. veterans who have illnesses because of asbestos exposure during their military service deserve priority. Litigation expenses A recent Rand Institute study concluded that of $70 billion spent by businesses and insurers on asbestos litigation since the 1970s, only about $30.1 billion went to victims. The rest was consumed by plaintiff and defense attorney fees and other expenses of litigation. Specter, R-Pa., who introduced the latest asbestos bill last month, said his bill would limit attorney fees to 5 percent, compared with current defense contingency fees of 33 percent. The bill would give businesses and their insurers immunity from lawsuits. And they would contribute $140 billion to a fund to pay victims' claims. That seems like a huge amount of money, but if it wasn't enough, those responsible for asbestos-caused illness and disease would have no further liability. Congress would be under pressure to use tax money to pay compensation. In a commentary in Monday's New York Times, Specter summed up the challenge before his committee: "Thousands of asbestos victims suffering from deadly diseases are uncompensated because of the insolvency of the asbestos-related companies that are prospective defendants. I stand ready to work with responsible critics to resolve any remaining issues. Each month, additional companies join the more than 70 already in the bankruptcy courts. The economy has taken a terrific beating with these bankruptcies and the losses of thousands of jobs. If we can put the finishing touches on this bill, we can produce a triple-win for asbestos victims, companies facing bankruptcy and the economy in general." W.R. Grace, the company that contaminated Libby, is among those in bankruptcy. If Montana's senators don't agree on how legislation will affect this stricken community, how will other senators be convinced to join them? Baucus and Burns must work together. A bad asbestos bill would be worse than none at all. The legislation must be changed to fulfill Specter's aspirations for a "triple-win."