"Most observers are familiar with the old aphorism that “there is law and there is asbestos law”—the notion being that legal protections for defendants were stripped away over time by both Federal and state courts attempting to deal with asbestos litigation. A relatively benign interpretation is that courts had to find innovative ways to deal with overwhelming masses of claims and many of these innovations backfired inadvertently. 1 A less charitable interpretation is that results-oriented courts condemned defendants and insurers to pay even the most specious of claims without regard to traditional principles of justice.2 Whatever the reason, the failures in free enterprise and government safety regulation that created massive asbestos exposure were followed by a civil justice system response to the ensuing litigation that was, at best, highly flawed. "
