Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997)
Rule of Law:
A settlement-only class certification must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including the (b)(3) predominance and (a)(4) adequacy of representation inquiries. The fact of settlement is relevant but cannot substitute for or overcome the failure to meet these requirements, particularly where the class includes members with diverse claims and significant internal conflicts of interest.
Facts:
- Over several decades, millions of individuals were exposed to asbestos products manufactured by a consortium of 20 companies known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR).
- This widespread exposure created a massive litigation crisis due to the volume of personal injury and death claims from asbestos-related diseases, which often have long latency periods.
- Attorneys representing plaintiffs with pending asbestos claims and attorneys for CCR negotiated a global settlement agreement intended to resolve all present and future claims against the CCR companies.
- The proposed class for this settlement was enormous, including all persons exposed to CCR's asbestos products (or their family members) who had not yet filed a lawsuit as of January 15, 1993.
- The class was comprised of individuals with a vast range of circumstances: some were currently suffering from severe asbestos-related illnesses, while others had only been exposed and had no manifest symptoms ('exposure-only' claimants).
- The settlement agreement established an administrative claims-processing system with a fixed schedule of payments for specific diseases, but it provided no compensation for certain claims (like medical monitoring) and capped payouts for others without an inflation adjustment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs' counsel and the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) jointly filed a class action complaint and a proposed settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The parties jointly moved for conditional class certification for settlement purposes only.
- The District Court conditionally certified an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3) and, after conducting fairness hearings, gave final approval to the settlement, finding that the Rule 23 requirements were satisfied.
- The District Court also entered an injunction prohibiting class members from pursuing separate asbestos-related lawsuits against the CCR defendants.
- A group of objectors, representing absent class members (Respondents), appealed the certification and settlement approval to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order, holding that the class failed to satisfy the predominance and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23.
- The original defendants, Amchem Products, Inc. et al. (Petitioners), sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a settlement-only class action, encompassing potentially millions of individuals with diverse asbestos-related claims including both current injuries and future potential claims, satisfy the predominance and adequacy of representation requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. The proposed settlement class fails to satisfy the requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. While settlement is a relevant factor for a court to consider—for instance, by removing concerns about trial manageability—it does not lower the bar for Rule 23's other requirements, which demand undiluted, even heightened, attention to protect absent class members. The class fails the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because individual questions (such as differing exposure histories, variations in state law, and the conflict between currently injured and exposure-only plaintiffs) overwhelm the common questions. A shared interest in a settlement cannot create predominance. The class also fails the adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) due to a fundamental conflict of interest between the currently injured, who seek maximum immediate compensation, and exposure-only plaintiffs, who need an inflation-protected fund for the future. Without structural protections like subclasses, a single set of representatives cannot adequately protect these divergent interests.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Breyer
No, but the case should be remanded for reconsideration. The majority's holding fails to give sufficient weight to the overwhelming need for settlement in the asbestos litigation crisis and improperly substitutes its own judgment for the District Court's fact-intensive findings. The Court of Appeals erred by failing to consider the settlement as a relevant factor in its analysis. When a settlement is on the table, the common interests in achieving fair compensation and avoiding the delays and costs of the tort system become paramount, potentially satisfying the predominance requirement. Furthermore, this Court is not in a position to re-weigh the complex factual determinations regarding the adequacy of representation. The proper course is to vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand for that court to review the District Court's certification decision for abuse of discretion under the correct legal standard, which acknowledges the relevance of the settlement.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly reined in the use of the 'settlement-only' class action as a mechanism for resolving mass torts. By demanding a rigorous application of Rule 23's predominance and adequacy requirements even when no trial is contemplated, the Court prioritized the due process rights of absent class members over the desire for global settlement efficiency. The ruling established that structural conflicts of interest, such as those between present and future claimants, are fatal to class certification without procedural safeguards like subclasses. This case effectively raised the bar for certifying sprawling, heterogeneous classes and signaled that comprehensive solutions to mass tort crises may require legislative action rather than judicial innovation through Rule 23.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"