Preview:

In the Circu it Court for B altimore C ity Case No. 24-C-02-001240/CN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 130 September Term, 2003 ______________________________________

EDNA O. ROURKE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF FRANKLIN ADAMS, ET AL.

v.

AMCHEM PRODUC TS, INC., ET AL.

______________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Wilner, J. Bell, C.J., and Cathell, J., Dissent ______________________________________ Filed: December 14, 2004

-1-

This case arises from a con solidated settlement of severa l hundred asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death actions. The issue before us is whether the dispute that emanated from the settlement agreement and that forms the basis of this lawsuit is subject to arbitration, and that, in turn, depends in part on whether we a re required to give full fa ith and credit or common law collateral estoppel effect to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia involving none of the plain tiffs and on ly three of the thirteen defendants in this case. The Circuit Cou rt for Baltimore City concluded that it would not apply the doctrine of offensive non-mu tual collateral es toppel base d on that judgment, and that, under Maryland and Federal law, the dispute was subject to arbitration. Upon those conclusions, the court granted a motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Special Appeals, addressing as well the issue of fu ll faith and credit, af firmed that rulin g, Rourke v. Amchem , 153 Md. App. 91, 835 A.2d 193 (2003), and so shall we.

BACKGROUND In September, 1988, a number of asbestos manufacturers that had been named as defenda nts in multiple lawsuits pending in several States entered into a Producer Agreement Concerning Center For Claims Resolution. Among other things, that agreement created a non-prof it entity known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR), to act as a claims agent with respect to all asbestos-related claims made against the participating members. Each participating mem ber d esignate d CC R as its so le ag ent to adm inister, ev alua te, se ttle, p ay, and defend such claims. The agreement required CCR to handle each claim on b ehalf of a ll

members and pre cluded it from s ettling a c laim on behalf of few er than a ll mem bers. We were apprized at oral argument, apparently as a result of that requirement, that, whenever CCR settled a claim, it obtained a release of all participating members, even those who had not been named as defendants in the particular case. Attachment A to the Producer Agreement ap portioned a mong th e memb ers their respective shares of three categories of expenses

Download Rourke v. Amchem.pdf

Maryland Law