The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Judiciary
BILL: SB 1260
INTRODUCER: Senator Trumbull
SUBJECT: Asbestos and Silica Claims
DATE: April 3, 2023
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Bond Cibula JU Favorable
2. CM
3. RC
I. Summary:
SB 1260 changes the pleading requirements for a claim alleging injury from exposure to asbestos
or silica to allow up to 30 days after filing the complaint to file a report supporting the claim
together with certain information supporting the claim. Currently, the report and information
must be filed with the complaint. The bill also increases the required information to be furnished
to the defendant, primarily by requiring more specificity.
The bill also codifies the “bare metal” defense, by which a manufacturer of goods that did not
use asbestos or silica in manufacturing a product is not liable for asbestos or silica exposure
resulting from another manufacturer adding asbestos or silica to the product.
The bill is effective July 1, 2023.
II. Present Situation:
In 2005, the state enacted the “Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act.”
1
The purposes
of the act are to:
Give priority to true victims of asbestos and silica, claimants who can demonstrate actual
physical impairment caused by exposure to asbestos or silica;
Fully preserve the rights of claimants who were exposed to asbestos or silica to pursue
compensation if they become impaired in the future as a result of the exposure;
Enhance the ability of the judicial system to supervise and control asbestos and silica
litigation; and
1
Section 774.201, F.S.
REVISED: BILL: SB 1260 Page 2
Conserve the scarce resources of the defendants to allow compensation to cancer victims and
others who are physically impaired by exposure to asbestos or silica while securing the right
to similar compensation for those who may suffer physical impairment in the future.
2
The act accomplishes its purposes by prohibiting speculative claims and focusing on persons
who can demonstrate an actual physical impairment caused by asbestos.
3
One means of doing so
is through requirements to provide detailed information at the outset of the litigation.
In order to file a case governed by the act, the plaintiff must supply a number of facts regarding
the exposure to the asbestos and the resultant injuries. The complaint must include a written
report and supporting test results constituting prima facie evidence of the exposed person’s
asbestos-related or silica-related physical impairment.
4
In addition to the written report, the
plaintiff must include with the complaint a sworn information form containing:
The claimant’s name, address, date of birth, and marital status;
If the claimant alleges exposure to asbestos or silica through the testimony of another person
or alleges other than direct or bystander exposure to a product, the name, address, date of
birth, and marital status for each person by which the claimant alleges exposure, hereinafter
the “index person,” and the claimant’s relationship to each such person;
The specific location of each alleged exposure;
The beginning and ending dates of each alleged exposure as to each asbestos product or silica
product for each location at which exposure allegedly took place for the plaintiff and each
index person;
The occupation and name of the employer of the exposed person at the time of each alleged
exposure;
The specific condition related to asbestos or silica claimed to exist; and
Any supporting documentation of the condition claimed to exist.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
SB 1260 changes the pleading requirements for a claim alleging injury from exposure to asbestos
or silica to allow up to 30 days after filing the complaint to file the written report and provide
certain information supporting the claim, rather than filing the report and information with the
complaint. The bill also adds to the list of required information, requiring the following
additional information:
Occupation of the exposed person.
Smoking history of the exposed person.
All current and past worksites of the exposed person.
All current and past employers of the exposed person.
The name of any person who may have exposed the exposed person to the asbestos or silica.
The name, address, and relationship to the exposed person for each person who is
knowledgeable regarding the exposed person’s exposures to asbestos or silica.
2
Section 774.202, F.S.
3
Section 774.204(1), F.S.
4
Section 774.205(2), F.S. The proof must meet the requirements of s. 774.204(2), (3), (5), or (6), F.S. The details of such
proof are not relevant to this analysis. BILL: SB 1260 Page 3
The identity of the manufacturer or seller and specific name of each asbestos-containing
product or silica-related product, including, but not limited to, all brand and trade names of
the asbestos-containing or silica-related product, to which the exposed person was exposed or
the other person was exposed if exposure was through another person.
For each product identified, each site and the specific location at each site, including the
address of each site, at which the exposed person was exposed to asbestos or silica or the
other person was exposed if exposure was through another person.
The beginning and ending dates of each exposure, the specific manner of each exposure, the
frequency and length of time of each exposure, and the proximity of the product or its use to
the exposed person and each person through whom the exposed person alleges exposure to
asbestos or silica.
A court must dismiss a defendant from the case, without prejudice, if that defendant’s product or
premises is not specifically identified in the sworn information form. A court must dismiss the
case in its entirety if the report or form is not filed.
The bill also provides that a product liability defendant in a civil action alleging an asbestos or a
silica claim is not liable for an exposure from a later-added product manufactured, distributed, or
sold by a third party.
5
This provision is a codification of an existing defense in asbestos and silica
cases sometimes referred to as the “bare metal defense.”
6
The bill takes effect July 1, 2023.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
5
An example may be helpful: Company A builds electric motors for various uses. No asbestos or silica is used to make the
motors. Company B buys motors from Company A and attaches them to a pump mechanism that uses asbestos or silica. In a
later asbestos or silica claim, Company A is not liable, but Company B may be.
6
“A manufacturer’s duty to warn, whether premised in negligence or strict liability theory, generally does not extend to
hazards arising exclusively from other manufacturer’s products, regardless of the foreseeability of the combined use and
attendant risk.” Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps, 881 F.Supp.2d 1361, 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2012); Waite v. AII Acquisition Corp., 194 F.
Supp. 3d 1298, 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2016). BILL: SB 1260 Page 4
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
None.
C. Government Sector Impact:
None.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 774.205 and
774.209.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.