To date, more than half a million lawsuits have been filed against major asbestos manufacturers since the first one in the 70s. In 1977, Congress was talking about bills that would rightfully compensate victims, thousands of them, workers and others who were exposed to the harmful mineral, even when their employers are fully aware of the risks.

 

Big businesses started to feel the pinch in mid 1980s. From 1982 to 1999, a total of 49 companies declared bankruptcy due to asbestos claims. Thirty more firms filed for bankruptcy in the first half of 2000. Under Chapter 11 of the special bankruptcy provision approved by Congress in 1994, companies who declare bankruptcy receive automatic stay of actions where they are defendant; this applies to subsidiary firms that are not included in the bankruptcy proceedings, securing their assets too. If specific requirements are met, these also include measures which discharge all current and future actions against the company.

• the total number of current suits against the company must be more than their net worth
• the fund to settle personal injury and property damage claims must be included in the reorganization plan
• the funding level is based on the current claims against the firm
• they should appoint someone to negotiate on behalf of the claimants of injuries
• the reorganization must be approved by 75% of the firm's claimants

Since mid-70s, Congress has attempted to stem the tide of lawsuits related to asbestos. The number of lawsuits kept ballooning; more than 40,000 cases were done against Johns-Mansville before it filed for bankruptcy. Both the Senate and the House attempted to legislate claims and lawsuits against mesothelioma. Nearly all companies take the "trust fund" route, which is favorable to big businesses and insurance companies.

There are two sides of the legislation on the issue of asbestos. One side is composed of the big businesses, insurance providers and asbestos companies. On the other side are the victims of asbestos poison and their families, labor organizations and mesothelioma lawyers. Each side seeks different things:

The Plaintiffs are seeking for:
• a claims system that is predictable and efficient
• limitation of liabilities to malignant cases
• definitive proof of exposure
• limitation of compensation to workplace-related exposures
• elimination of victim's right to look for remedies using the tort system

The Victims' side asks for:
• rightful compensation for the victims and their families
• recognition of asbestos exposure, both environmental and secondary
• relaxed basis of proof of exposure
• responsibility to be carried by manufacturers and insurance providers
• the right to seek court settlement
• adequate funds for present and future claims

Added to federal legislation, some states have made their own laws to govern mesothelioma legal suits. Although states like Texas and Florida have aimed their legislation at limiting the number of cases filed in courts, a large portion of it is also intended to benefit victims with lawful claims to settlement for asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma.

These are the most common concerns addressed by state legislatures:

• To prohibit "bundling" of class action suits – There are many other illnesses, apart from asbestosis and mesothelioma, that are asbestos-related. Those who suffer from conditions of lung, esophageal and stomach cancer, pleural plaques, stenosis and many others were dismissed by the court. They needed to make judgment calls about whether the sicknesses have originated from other causes. To solve this, several lawyers wrap up plaintiffs with "lesser" sicknesses with one or two who were diagnosed with mesothelioma. This is called "bundling", which is prohibited by several states.

• To expedite mesothelioma cases – In 2005, California passed a legislation to expedite lawsuits filed for mesothelioma, especially if the case is in the end stages of the sickness, to counter-measure a tactic of stalling the proceedings of the case in the hope that the plaintiff will die.