## Facts

- Thousands of refinery and industrial workers (and families) alleged personal injuries from exposure to asbestos-containing products supplied or manufactured by multiple defendants.
- The class encompassed about 2,298 claimants with illnesses including mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancers, asbestosis, and pleural disease.
- The district faced a long-running asbestos docket; several defendants had entered bankruptcy, and many claimants died while awaiting trial.
- To address case volume, the court used a multi-phase trial plan:
  - Phase I: class-wide trial of common issues (e.g., product defect, warnings, general causation).
  - Phase II: plaintiff-specific exposure/causation issues as needed.
  - Phase III: damages.
- For Phase III damages, the court grouped class members into five disease categories and tried a statistically selected sample of plaintiffs in each category to individual jury damages verdicts.
- The court proposed applying the average damages award for each disease category to the remaining (non-sample) plaintiffs in that category, who agreed to accept aggregate damages rather than individual damages trials.
- Defendants objected, asserting a right to individualized damages trials for each plaintiff and raising due process concerns; the court also addressed prejudgment interest and allocation/credits relating to settlements, including with bankrupt entities.

## Issues

1. Whether a class action with phased trials was a permissible method to adjudicate thousands of asbestos claims presenting common issues.
2. Whether damages for non-sample plaintiffs could be determined in the aggregate by applying statistically derived category-average awards from sample trials, consistent with due process and procedural rules.
3. How prejudgment interest and allocation/settlement credits should be handled within the class-wide, aggregate adjudication framework.

## Decision

- The court upheld the class action structure and phased trial plan as an appropriate method for resolving the mass asbestos docket.
- The court approved the Phase III statistical sampling approach and the use of category-average damages for non-sample plaintiffs who consented to that method.
- The court concluded the plan satisfied due process because defendants had meaningful opportunities to litigate liability and to challenge the sampling methodology and damages proof in the sample trials.
- The court addressed remedial administration issues, including prejudgment interest and the treatment of settlements/credits involving bankrupt or settling entities, in a manner consistent with the aggregate framework.

## Legal Principles

- In a mass-tort setting, a federal court may use Rule 23 and case-management authority to adjudicate common issues on a class basis when common questions predominate and individualized processing would be impracticable.
- Aggregate determination of damages through statistically representative sampling may be permissible when:
  - sample plaintiffs receive individualized adjudication,
  - the methodology is designed to be representative and is subject to adversarial testing,
  - defendants can contest the statistical basis and damages evidence, and
  - non-sample plaintiffs knowingly consent to category-average awards in lieu of individual damages trials.
- Due process does not necessarily require individualized damages trials for every claimant when alternative procedures provide a fair opportunity to litigate and are justified by extreme docket constraints and the need for timely resolution.
- Allocation of liability, settlement credits (including those linked to bankrupt entities), and prejudgment interest may be administered in ways adapted to a class-wide and aggregated remedial structure.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a mass-tort class trial plan that resolved common asbestos issues collectively and used statistically sampled damages verdicts to set category-average awards for consenting non-sample plaintiffs, finding the approach procedurally permissible and consistent with due process while also providing mechanisms for interest and settlement-credit administration.


Cimino v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 751 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Tex. 1990)