SC08-1617 & SC08-1639 - American Optical Corporation, Et Al. v. Daniel N. Williams, Et Al

State: Florida

Docket No: SC08-1617

Case Date: 07/08/2011

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ Nos. SC08-1616 & SC08-1640 ____________ AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, et al., Appellants-Petitioners, vs. WALTER R. SPIEWAK, et al., Appellees-Respondents. ____________ Nos. SC08-1617 & SC08-1639 ____________ AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, et al., Appellants-Petitioners, vs. DANIEL N. WILLIAMS, et al., Appellees-Respondents. [July 8, 2011] LEWIS, J. This case is before the Court on appeal from Williams v. American Optical Corporation, 985 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act (the

Act) is unconstitutional as applied to the Appellees. In its decision, the Fourth District also certified conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Hurst, 949 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). See Williams, 985 So. 2d at 32. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. BACKGROUND Procedural History In the decision below, the Fourth District Court of Appeal cobbled together multiple asbestosis-litigation cases and summarized the relevant facts as follows: Litigation in Florida state courts involving asbestos contamination has been considerable and persistent for a number of years. Prompted by that, the Florida Legislature decided to enact the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act, which became effective in 2005. [n.1] The Act made significant changes to the cause of action for damages resulting from an exposure to asbestos. The issue we confront involves the nature of those changes. [N.1.] See Ch. 2005-274,

Download SC08-1617 & SC08-1639 - American Optical Corporation, Et Al. v. Daniel N. Wi