The Bakersfield Californian reported that on behalf of the State of California, an attorney filed a civil lawsuit against Pacifica Enterprises of San Diego – which owns the Padre Hotel in Bakersfield – for purposely and repeatedly violating state asbestos-removal laws in an attempt to save money.

According to the suit, Pacifica used untrained workers to demolish the Padre, exposing those workers to asbestos. Pacifica also hired a company to illegally dispose of the asbestos in the Bena Landfill, a dump used by the public.

The Californian further reported:

Allegedly, Pacifica did it knowingly in an attempt to avoid the expense of hiring a qualified asbestos removal company to do the job correctly.

Pacifica has been cited multiple times for violating asbestos-related environmental laws in the past, and an unnamed foreman who worked on the hotel renovation said Pacifica employees knew the company was in violation, but thought it could get away with it.

Hoping to send the message to corporations that these practices will not be tolerated, the attorney made a list of fines he’s hoping a judge will impose on Pacifica Enterprises. The list includes six separate charges ranging from $2,500 a day to $500,000 a day for each day the company allegedly violated the law.

Thanks to a circuit judge in West Palm Beach, Fla., all asbestos lawsuits have come to a screeching halt. According to the Palm Beach Post, Judge Timothy McCarthy said he would not hear another case until the question of where the lawsuits should be filed is answered. After a “rancorous” two and 1/2 hour hearing on whether to dismiss of transfer 72 asbestos-related claims filed by a Miami law firm on behalf of citizens in Alabama and other parts of Florida.

Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties are sought after filing locations because each has a separate asbestos division and case management system that forces 99 percent of claims into settlements, the article says.

“Lawyers say they file asbestos suits in South Florida because other jurisdictions can’t handle such massive and complex litigation,” the article says. “They argue that Florida law allows them to file in any county as long as even one defendant company does business there, and that a lawsuit can’t be filed in or moved to another county or state if just one defendant doesn’t agree to it.”

But McCarthy asked, “What do I tell the taxpayers of Palm Beach County? Why should they be burdened?”

He gave lawyers 20 days to submit solution proposals and set a hearing on whether to disband the asbestos division and spread its 1,500 cases among other judges. According to the Palm Beach Post, Miami-Dade County has 1,750 asbestos suits pending, and Broward County may have between 4,000 and 8,000.

A lawyer for the Miami firm suggested that the court system could actually make money from the legislation because the majority are settled outside of court without trial, he says. But McCarthy argued the $206 filing fee doesn’t add up to much in a two- to three-week trial.

It cost $3,000 a day to provide a courtroom, staff and jurors in a recent Alabama man’s asbestos lawsuit, he says. The claim was rejected by the jury.

Defense lawyers suggested that a Fort Lauderdale, Fla. company was being used as a “sham defendant” to get past the venue hurdles and keep asbestos litigation in South Florida. Bigham Insulation and Supply, which also does business in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, is named in 3,000 current lawsuits, according to its attorney, John Liebman of Orlando.

In court filings, the company says it objects to being sued in Alabama or another state because it doesn’t do business anywhere else, the article says.

“It is all Bigham can do to keep up with the cases filed against it here in Florida,” Liebman wrote in his objection to transferring the 72 cases. “Bigham does not and will not agree to be sued anywhere outside the state of Florida.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently published an opinion column by Edwin Rasmussen, a former state commander of the Washington Department of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, about U.S. veterans exposed to asbestos during their service from World War II through the Vietnam War. In that era, all of the military services used asbestos widely as insulation. As a result, Rasmussen says, thousands of veterans already have been lost to asbestos-related diseases and more will follow.

Time is already short for these victims, so Rasmussen says it is “regrettable that the U.S. Senate recently let partisan wrangling sideline important legislation that would provide compensation to veterans and other victims of asbestos-related illnesses.”

The passing of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act is “being held up by a well-funded army of lobbyists doing the bidding of the trial lawyers while military veterans and other victims of asbestos exposure are forced to wait years for their day in court,” he says.

“Asbestos has proven a cash cow for trial lawyers and they won’t give it up easily. So much money is involved that a massive backlog of asbestos cases has been created in the courts. Many of these cases are brought on behalf of people who aren’t even sick but fear that someday they might suffer from asbestos-related illnesses.

The lines at the courthouse door are so long that many victims suffering from asbestos-related diseases — including thousands of veterans exposed while in uniform — will die before they ever get inside,” Rasmussen says.

Because asbestos-exposed veterans were “employed” by the federal government, they have very limited recourse to seek compensation from the government for their illnesses. “Other avenues where veterans might seek compensation have unfortunately proved time-consuming and all too often fruitless. The companies that actually produced and supplied asbestos to the military have gone bankrupt — paying out only pennies on the dollar to victims. Even to receive those pennies, veterans must wait in line behind thousands of other lawsuits,” He says.

National veterans’ organizations support the FAIR Act because it offers a solution to this tragic injustice while protecting existing veterans’ benefits. It also allows veterans to seek reimbursement for medical monitoring costs, so they may get medical attention at the hospital of their choosing rather than forcing them to travel to VA hospitals. The legislation also provides for free legal assistance programs to help claimants to submit claims.

“Congress must act now to compensate those veterans and other victims who must live with the ravages of asbestos-related illness,” Rasmussen says. “I urge all senators, including Washington’s Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, to honor the memory of the WW II veterans who have already been lost to these terrible illnesses do what is necessary to pass the FAIR Act before leaving Washington this year.”

Mesothelioma — a type of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos — is fairly new and difficult to diagnose and treat. Current treatments are surgical removal of affected tissue, chemotherapy and radiation, depending on the stage of the disease.

But a new type of treatment has been introduced to the mix. Photodynamic therapy uses light to kill cancerous cells after a drug is administered intravenously to target and render the cells more sensitive, says a press release put out by PRWeb.

The drug has no affect on normal cells, so no additional harm will be done. After cells have been properly exposed, a special frequency of light laser beams are directed toward the mesothelioma. Although there have been cases of eye irritability and nausea, side effects have been minimal.

For more information, visit the Mesothelioma Help Web site.

According to an article published by the London Times, reinsurance company Equitas warned that U.S. Senator Owen Hatch’s attempt to cap the soaring cost of asbestos-related compensation claims is expected to fail. The company, which was set up by Lloyd’s of London in 1996, also said it has raised its reserves against such claims by 296 million pounds. In total, Equitas has 4 billion pounds against asbestos-related claims as legal cases mount in the United States, according to the article.

The bill in question would force insurers and manufacturers to pay $114 billion into a central fund, but was stalled due to deliberation about whether the amount is sufficient.
Equitas Chief Executive Scott Moser called the chance of the bill passing “remote.”

According to the article, insurers have been vocal in support for the idea, as 50 percent of asbestos compensation awards are absorbed by legal costs. Under such a central fund, victims of asbestos-related diseases would receive a maximum compensation of $1 million without the courts becoming involved.

In attempts to ward off a potential asbestos-like crisis, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft signed into law a bill making it more difficult for those exposed to silica to sue before they become ill, according to an article published in The Toledo Blade.

The law, which likely will take effect in early September, makes Ohio the first state to establish a medical threshold plaintiffs must meet to sustain a suit against firms that mine sand and quartz or make the safety equipment for sand blasters, glass makers and other workers.

When inhaled, silica — a component of sand — can lead to cancer, lung ailments and death, much like asbestos can. Fewer than 1,000 silica suits have been filed in Ohio, according to the article.

Unlike a separate asbestos bill awaiting Taft’s signature, the silica bill will not retroactively remove active silica cases from court dockets until the plaintiffs meet the new medical criteria. More than 40,000 asbestos suits have been filed in Ohio to date.

Amid recent Wall Street rumors that a national fund to pay asbestos victims’ claims, lawmakers said no agreement has been reached. The fund would be financed by asbestos litigation defendants and insurers with the idea that set amounts would be paid to victims of asbestos-related diseases, while ending their right to sue.

In an article published by Reuters, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said, “Contrary to market rumors, there has been no deal reached on the issue of asbestos.”

But lawmakers are still discussing the issue and are hopeful that a bipartisan solution can be reached, he said in a statement.

“A solution is needed that addresses the devastating impact asbestos has had both on individuals and businesses, and both leaders are working toward that goal,” Daschle said.

Companies have paid an estimated $70 billion on some 730,000 asbestos personal injury claims, making it the most expensive type of litigation in U.S. history, according to the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. According to the Wall Street rumors, lawmakers had agreed on the size of the asbestos fund, a key step in the fund’s approval, according to the Reuters article.

Asbestos stocks rose on rumors of the agreement on the proposed asbestos fund between Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee and Daschle of South Dakota. The two men said last month they would keep open the possibility of such a fund after an effort by a senior appeals court judge to mediate among asbestos companies, insurers and labor representatives failed.

A federal locomotive safety law prohibits asbestos victims from making asbestos injury claims against train manufacturers in state courts, ruled the Ohio Supreme Court 5-2 recently.

The decision upholds a lower court ruling that barred about 2,000 former railway workers from adding manufacturers to their separate lawsuits against nearly 60 companies that made, sold or used asbestos, according to the Associated Press. The workers say they were exposed to the substance while working in or maintaining rail cars.

The decision wasn’t a comment on the validity of the workers’ claims, but the justices said, “claims against locomotive manufacturers are wholly futile.” In making the decision, the justices cited the Federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act, saying it pre-empts state-law tort claims against railroad manufacturers.

They also said trial courts have great discretion in deciding whether to add new defendants to an existing lawsuit. A plaintiff challenging the use of that discretion must show the decision was “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.”

Disagreeing, one justice said the claims were not in danger of intruding into federal domain because they dealt with products no longer used, not current railroad equipment.

More than 40,000 cases are pending by Ohioans exposed to asbestos.