Asbestos litigation is the longest, most expensive mass tort in U.S. history, involving more than 8,400 defendants and 730,000 claimants as of 2002 according to the RAND Corporation, and at least one defendant reported claim counts in excess of 800,000 in 2006 .

Current trends indicate that the worldwide rate at which people are diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases will likely increase through the next decade . Analysts have estimated that the total costs of asbestos litigation in the USA alone is over $250 billion.

The Federal legal system in the United States has been faced with numerous counts of asbestos related suits, which often included multiple plaintiffs with similar symptoms. The concern with these court cases are the staggering numbers, which in 1999 recorded 200,000 cases pending in the Federal court system of the United States . Further, it is estimated that within the next 40 years, cases may balloon to seven hundred thousand cases. These numbers help explain how there are thousands of current pending cases.

Litigation of asbestos materials has been a difficult entity to muster because of the multiple factors which play a role in every case. The company that often is being exposed for their negligence of working conditions and the worker or in many cases, workers who were exposed to asbestos and did not know that they were, or knew and now fear future medical problems, have current symptoms or were upset for the negligence of the company. Companies sometimes counter saying that health issues do not currently appear in their worker or workers, or sometimes are settled out of court. The Research and Development (RAND) think-tank has appropriated certain legal information which is readily available for proclaimed victims of natural resource accidents. This information, although sometimes deemed radical, has helped many workers, regardless of health condition, earn compensation through companies. RAND, along with the Institute for Civil Justice (ICJ) have been proponents of the organization of past cases in order to determine one aspect of fair compensation for workers.

1999 saw the introduction of the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act. This Act was used as a tool in order to determine which of the numerous federal cases were true, and if the plaintiff’s were actually suffering from asbestos related illness. This process was necessary as thousands of false insurance claims were costing companies billions and ultimately many companies were forced to file for bankruptcy. While companies filed for bankruptcy, this limited payouts to those who were actually affected by the material. What the 1999 Act ultimately determined was “a judgment that those resources should be spent on delivering full and prompt compensation to those who are, and will become, impaired by asbestos disease, and not dissipated on payments to those who are not sick and may never become sick, on punitive damages that seek retribution for the decisions of long-dead executives for conduct that took place decades ago and on the extraordinary transaction costs (Professor Christopher Edley, Jr.).” With this litigation, it was recommended by many that the framework of the Act was set in a manner that was fair towards most parties.

There is no effective way to allocate funding to every claimant with the fair treatment of companies in question. Although a majority of companies involved with numerous asbestos cases are household names, they are also at the highest risk while faced with workers health concerns. The 1999 Act has effectively helped save time, money and aggravation for both sides of every asbestos case. There are fewer cases of bankruptcy and fewer cases of fraudulent medical concerns. Notable concerns with bankruptcy include the fact that once a company is forced to divide funding amongst its workers, it has a limited budget which lags on the economy and ultimately cannot contribute back the way it once was. This was a main reason for the hesitation of any strict enforcement policy. However, the Act of 1999 helps to alleviate exuberant payouts to unqualified claimants, all while safely and legally protecting those who were, are and will be affected by asbestos related illnesses.

Litigation exists outside the United States in England, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Australia, and Japan among other nations. See the companion article for further information.

The volume of the asbestos liability has concerned manufacturers and insurers and reinsurers . The amounts and method of allocating compensation have been the source of many court cases, and government attempts at resolution of existing and future cases.