The Massachusetts Legislature is reviewing a significant amendment to the state’s construction tort statute of repose, proposing to remove the stringent six-year limitation on filing certain asbestos-related claims. This change aims to provide legal recourse for families impacted by asbestos-related diseases, which often manifest decades after exposure.

Proposed Changes and Legal Opinions

The adjustment follows a 2019 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which upheld the current statute, noting that while the outcome was regrettable, any alteration needed to come from the Legislature. This verdict came from a case involving the estate of Wayne Oliver, a worker who died from mesothelioma in 2016, decades after his initial asbestos exposure.

State Representative and tort attorney Jeffrey Roy, a supporter of the bill, highlighted that the current law effectively shields companies from liability long before potential asbestos-related health issues could surface. 

The proposed amendment states, “Nothing in this section shall apply to any tort actions for damages due to latent diseases caused by exposure to toxic substances including, but not limited to, asbestos.” It would also apply retroactively to pending cases, addressing a crucial gap in protection for victims.

Critics like Kyle Bjornlund of Cetrulo LLP warn that the amendment might face constitutional challenges for retroactively stripping defendants of a defense previously available under the existing statute.

 He emphasized that the statute of repose is designed to protect designers and installers from liability for issues that could arise long after their work is completed, potentially due to poor maintenance or subsequent alterations to the installation.

The law has been criticized for being particularly unfair to plaintiffs dealing with diseases like mesothelioma, which are caused by asbestos exposure that occurred decades ago but only manifests later in life. Barry Castleman, an asbestos-related disease expert, pointed out that while plaintiffs can still pursue claims against multiple defendants, contractors, and installers who knew the risks of asbestos have been unjustly protected by the current statute.

During a legislative hearing, Rep. Roy argued that Massachusetts should align with other states that have adopted more plaintiff-friendly statutes of repose for asbestos or established discovery rules that account for the delayed onset of related illnesses.

The amendment, if passed, aims not only to reopen cases previously blocked by the statute but also to prevent future injustices by ensuring that companies cannot use potentially harmful materials without accountability. This legislative action seeks to correct an imbalance, ensu