Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
527 U.S. 815 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Applicants for certification of a mandatory, non-opt-out settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) on a 'limited fund' theory must demonstrate that the fund is limited by more than the parties' own agreement. The proposed class must also include all claimants with claims on the fund, and the settlement must provide for equitable treatment of all class members, including structural protections such as subclasses for groups with conflicting interests.
Facts:
- Fibreboard Corporation, a company that manufactured asbestos-containing products until 1971, faced a massive number of personal injury lawsuits.
- Fibreboard was engaged in a major coverage dispute with its insurers, Continental Casualty Company and Pacific Indemnity Company, over liability policies that were potentially its most significant asset.
- Facing overwhelming potential liability, Fibreboard, its insurers, and a group of plaintiffs' lawyers negotiated a 'Global Settlement Agreement' to resolve all future and unsettled asbestos claims.
- The agreement was valued at $1.535 billion, a figure derived from a separate 'Trilateral Settlement Agreement' between Fibreboard and its insurers, which was created as a backup fund in case the global settlement failed.
- This settlement figure was presented as the 'limited fund,' despite no independent judicial valuation of Fibreboard's total assets or the maximum value of the disputed insurance policies.
- The proposed settlement class was defined to exclude tens of thousands of claimants, including those with lawsuits already pending against Fibreboard.
- The same lawyers representing the settlement class had also negotiated a separate, more favorable settlement for an 'inventory' of 45,000 of their existing clients, whose payments were contingent on the approval of the global class settlement.
- The class was not divided into subclasses, lumping together claimants with present injuries and those with only future claims, as well as those exposed before and after the expiration of a key 1959 insurance policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Named plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Fibreboard Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking certification of a settlement class.
- The District Court provisionally certified a mandatory, non-opt-out class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B).
- After conducting an 8-day fairness hearing, the District Court formally certified the class and approved the Global Settlement Agreement.
- Petitioners, a group of objecting class members, appealed the certification and settlement approval to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor.
- On remand, the Fifth Circuit issued a brief per curiam opinion again affirming the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time.
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 the certification of a mandatory, non-opt-out settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) satisfy the rule's requirements when the 'limited fund' is valued based on the parties' settlement agreement, the class excludes a large number of claimants, and no subclasses are created to represent conflicting interests within the class?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. The certification of a mandatory settlement class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is improper where the proponents fail to meet the historical requirements of a limited fund action. The court identified three core deficiencies in this settlement. First, the 'limited fund' was not proven to be limited independently of the parties' agreement; the District Court uncritically accepted the settlement figure without making its own findings on the total value of Fibreboard's assets and the maximum potential value of its insurance coverage. Second, the settlement failed the requirement of equity among claimants by excluding a massive number of individuals with claims on the same assets, notably the 'inventory' plaintiffs represented by class counsel who received a preferential side deal. Third, the settlement failed to ensure intraclass equity by lumping together claimants with conflicting interests—such as currently injured versus exposure-only plaintiffs, and pre-1959 versus post-1959 exposure plaintiffs—without the structural protection of separately represented subclasses, a failure that directly contravenes the principles established in Amchem.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. The certification should have been upheld due to the extraordinary circumstances of mass asbestos litigation, which defies customary judicial administration. The dissent argued that the District Court acted within its discretion to approve a pragmatic solution to an intractable problem. The fund was functionally limited because of the significant risk that the insurance coverage litigation would result in a total loss, making the settlement value a reasonable estimation of the policies' worth. Furthermore, the supposed conflicts of interest and lack of subclasses were manageable and justified by the 'witching hour' necessity of reaching a deal before the insurance asset potentially vanished forever. The settlement, while imperfect, provided the best possible outcome for the class as a whole compared to the alternative of years of costly litigation with a high probability of zero recovery for most claimants.
Concurring - Chief Justice Rehnquist
While I join the majority's opinion because it correctly states the existing law under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the dissent graphically details the massive and overwhelming problem of asbestos litigation. If devising a system from a 'clean slate,' the dissent's pragmatic approach would be preferable. However, courts are not free to invent ideal systems; they must apply the rules as written. The 'elephantine mass of asbestos cases' demands a legislative solution, as the current judicial framework is inadequate for the task.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the use of the mandatory 'limited fund' class action under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) as a tool for resolving mass tort litigation. By insisting on strict adherence to the historical antecedents of the limited fund device, the Court prevents parties from manufacturing a 'limited fund' through a settlement agreement. It reinforces the holding of Amchem that structural protections for absent class members, such as subclasses to address conflicts, are non-negotiable and cannot be supplanted by a judge's later finding that a settlement is 'fair' under Rule 23(e). The ruling effectively channels mass tort settlements toward the opt-out structure of Rule 23(b)(3), increasing the difficulty and uncertainty of achieving global peace for defendants.
Unlock the full brief for Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.