## Facts

- Asbestos manufacturers negotiated a proposed nationwide class settlement intended to resolve both current asbestos personal-injury claims and future claims by persons exposed to asbestos.
- The putative class included individuals with manifested asbestos-related disease, persons exposed but not yet ill (“exposure-only”), and certain family members with derivative claims.
- The settlement contemplated standardized, administrative compensation criteria and schedules rather than individualized tort litigation.
- The court had conditionally certified a settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, subject to further review.
- Objectors and intervenors challenged the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and argued that exposure-only members lacked Article III standing because they had no present physical impairment.
- The opinion addressed whether the case-or-controversy requirement was satisfied as to exposure-only class members at the pre–final approval stage.

## Issues

1. Whether exposure-only asbestos claimants have Article III standing based on increased risk of disease and related present harms (including medical monitoring) despite no manifested injury.
2. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction to conditionally maintain a settlement class that included exposure-only members.
3. Whether Rule 23 permitted continuing conditional certification of a settlement class including exposure-only members in light of the standing and jurisdiction objections.

## Decision

- The court denied the standing and subject-matter jurisdiction challenges.
- The court held that exposure-only class members alleged a sufficient Article III “injury in fact.”
- The court concluded that asbestos exposure, coupled with significant increased risk and present consequences such as medical monitoring needs, constituted an actual or imminent injury for constitutional purposes.
- The court maintained conditional certification of the settlement class, including exposure-only members, and permitted the settlement process to continue.

## Legal Principles

- Article III requires an “injury in fact” that is concrete and actual or imminent, even when a case is presented in a settlement posture.
- In toxic-exposure contexts, a significant increased risk of serious disease, together with present harms such as the need for medical monitoring, may satisfy Article III injury-in-fact requirements.
- A court does not lose jurisdiction merely because parties pursue a comprehensive settlement; it must still find real adversity and a live controversy.
- Once Article III jurisdiction is satisfied, exposure-only claims are not categorically barred from inclusion in a Rule 23 settlement class; remaining Rule 23 questions may be addressed at later certification and final approval stages.

## Conclusion

The court held that exposure-only asbestos claimants could satisfy Article III standing based on asbestos exposure, heightened risk of future disease, and present monitoring-related harms, and it therefore retained jurisdiction and continued conditional certification of a nationwide settlement class that included both presently injured and exposure-only members.


Carlough v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1993)