Asbestos litigation is rife with fraud and abuse

America’s legal system intends to compensate people truly harmed by asbestos, but the system is out-of-control and driven by plaintiff lawyer greed. Put simply, the current process is treating injured persons unequally and taking compensation away from legitimate future claimants. The causes? A lack of oversight and transparency, conflicts of interest, weak evidence standards, high fees, inequitable treatment of claims and outright fraud.

Rooting out fraud and abuse now will help legitimate asbestos claimants who deserve to be compensated for their injuries, as well as the millions of other Americans who are affected by asbestos litigation abuse.

How it works

Asbestos claimants have two ways to get compensation:

  • Go to court, and sue the company(ies) for claimed exposure to asbestos, and
  • Go to an asbestos trust, and make a claim. Many companies that used asbestos have set up asbestos bankruptcy trusts to fund payments to claimants legitimately harmed by the company. Claimants have legitimate recourse to seek payments through both processes and from multiple sources based on their exposure record.

Some lawyers say "why stop there?"

Often, asbestos plaintiff lawyers go beyond the facts of their clients’ claims. The lawyers go to more and more sources and provide conflicting “facts” about exposure histories, tailored to seek maximum payout from each company and trust, claiming their client was mostly harmed by the named company.

How do they get away with it?

You might wonder what the managers of these trusts are doing to vet the claims, to make sure they’re not getting ripped off. But it’s not clear they do, or even want to.

Fox guarding the henhouse?

Asbestos trusts are often controlled by the asbestos plaintiff lawyers – the very same lawyers who are submitting claims. Typically they keep their methods and operations hidden from the public, and oversight by the bankruptcy courts is negligible at best.


Asbestos Plaintiff Lawyers

These lawyers are generating substantial wealth with little transparency and oversight, profiting on up to 40 percent of the value of their clients’ claims. (WSJ 3/11/13)


Workers & Retirees

Workers and retirees of companies targeted by plaintiff lawyers’ excessive litigation and specious claims may lose their jobs and pensions. Some 100 companies have declared bankruptcy from asbestos litigation. (Towers Watson 2013)

Future Asbestos Trust Claimants

As volumes of asbestos lawyers’ specious trust claims far exceed the projected number of legitimate claims, payments are reduced and future claimants get less. Payments currently average 15 percent of full claim value. (WSJ 3/11/13)


Businesses are hindered by the burdensome legal costs imposed by asbestos lawyers’ fraudulent claims.


When businesses are forced to pay excessive legal costs to combat asbestos lawyers’ specious claims, costs are passed on to consumers.


The economy and investors are harmed when companies are unfairly targeted and overrun by asbestos lawyers’ questionable claims.

Fabricating the evidence

Examples of the abuse

Personal Injury Lawyers Liable for Racketeering

The lack of transparency around asbestos claims makes it difficult to expose suspected fraud. Recently, however, two asbestos lawyers and their radiologist were found liable for filing fraudulent lawsuits. Freight transportation company CSX filed racketeering claims in 2007 against Robert Pierce and Louis Raimond over asbestos lawsuits they had filed against the company, when CSX discovered hundreds of switched diagnoses by radiologist Ray Harron.
Read more

"Fraud in injury claims degrades the U.S. system and makes it harder for truly injured persons to be treated fairly."

Ellen M. Fitzsimmons, CSX executive vice president for law and public affairs

Manufacturing Silica Claims from Old Asbestos Evidence

To identify clients, many asbestos plaintiff lawyers set up mass X-ray screenings in the 1990s, with “diagnoses” done by experts hired by those lawyers – a recipe for fraud. U.S. District Judge Janis Jack was overseeing some 10,000 claims for silica exposure in 2005, and an investigation revealed more than half of the plaintiffs had already filed claims for asbestos exposure. Asbestos and silica diseases are not usually found in combination, and if both were present an expert X-ray reader should have noted it.
Read more

"The diagnoses were driven by neither health nor justice: they were manufactured for money. The record does not reveal who originally devised this scheme, but it is clear that the lawyers, doctors and screening companies were all willing participants."
-U.S. District Judge Janis Jack

What can we do to
address the abuse

What is needed

Fixing our broken asbestos claim process will take some combination of the following:

  • Greater transparency of trust claims and compensation processes
  • Clearer definitions and oversight to ensure claim filings are accurate and merit compensation
  • Accurate scientific evidence standards
  • Linking court venue to a claimant’s place of residency or workplace, or a business headquarters location
  • Prevention of fraud in “double dipping”— by requiring full disclosure of all claim filings lawyers have submitted for their clients
  • Laws to prevent dissimilar cases from being joined together in court
  • Rules to ensure all claimants are treated equitably and that financial resources go to deserving claimants
  • Federal oversight to ensure asbestos lawyers’ advertising is accurate and ethical
  • State and federal laws that close the doors on plaintiff lawyers’ abusive and fraudulent asbestos litigation and trust claims and ensure legitimate claimants are compensated
  • Judges who ensure that asbestos claims processes are legitimate and fair
  • Sanctions against lawyers who make fraudulent, unethical and contradictory asbestos claims

Reform legislation

Some states, such as Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin have passed meaningful asbestos reforms, and many other have introduced reform bills. In 2016 Congress is considering the The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, which includes the asbestos reform provisions from the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT Act). Learn more about supporting the federal asbestos claim reforms at .

Case studies

Examples of the Abuse

Sign Up For Updates

We promise to only send relevant email, not to spam, etc.