ÌìÃÀÍøÕ¾´«Ã½´«Ã½

A litigation association formed by insurers has filed a friend of the court brief with the Michigan Supreme Court, urging it to hear an appeal that may determine whether claimants in Michigan can recover damages based on the mere possibility of a future injury. The plaintiffs in Henry v. The Dow Chemical Corp. are alleging exposure to ground contamination and want Dow Chemical to pay damages equivalent to the cost of having their health monitored for any illnesses that may result from their alleged exposure. The group, the Coalition for Litigation Justice Inc., said claims for such medical monitoring or surveillance are novel and controversial, in part because they do away with the time-honored rule that liability should be imposed only when an individual has sustained a present injury. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court and several state supreme courts have reportedly rejected medical monitoring claims. In a 1997 asbestos case, the Supreme Court refused to recognize medical monitoring as a cause of action for railroad workers suing their railroad employers under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Over the past two years, the supreme courts of Nevada, Alabama, and Kentucky all rejected medical monitoring claims related to a wide range of alleged exposures, from environmental tobacco smoke to groundwater pollution to prescription drugs. The Coalition was joined on its brief by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Tort Reform Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council.

Topics Claims