Case Title: American Optical Corp., et al. v. Spiewak, et al.; American Optical Corp., et al. v. Williams, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC08-1616, SC08-1640, SC08-1617, SC08-1639

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2011-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
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 
 
- 2 - 
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, § 10, Laws of Fla.  The Act is 
codified at Chapter 774, Part II, Florida Statutes (2007). 
 
Before the Act was adopted, all of the plaintiffs in these cases 
[collectively Appellees] had filed actions for damages based on 
various degrees of asbestosis—that is, interstitial lung disease 
resulting from asbestos exposure and pleural thickening.  According 
to plaintiffs, when they filed their lawsuits before the Act‘s adoption it 
was not necessary to establish that any malignancy or physical 
impairment had already resulted from their contraction of the disease 
asbestosis.  Instead, they claim, it was merely necessary for them to 
 
- 3 - 
show that they had suffered an injury from an asbestos-related 
disease. 
Under the Act, however, a claimant bringing an action for 
damages from exposure to asbestos must now, as an indispensable 
element, plead and prove an existing malignancy or actual physical 
impairment for which asbestos exposure was a substantial 
contributing factor.  Plaintiffs‘ asbestosis claims were dismissed for 
failing to meet the requirements of the Act.  They challenge the Act 
on the grounds that by this legislation the government of Florida has 
taken from them a personal right in a cause of action for money 
damages arising from the exposure to asbestos even if the injury has 
not yet become malignant or caused any physical impairment. 
 
Williams, 985 So. 2d at 25-26 (footnote omitted).  The Fourth District framed the 
dispositive issue presented as:  ―Can [the Act] be retroactively applied to prejudice 
or defeat causes of action already accrued and in litigation?‖  Id. at 25.   
 
The Fourth District properly noted that citizens have personal rights under 
the Florida Constitution to acquire, defend, and keep property free from the claims 
of government and to vindicate those rights in courts of law.  See id. at 26.  The 
district court explained that a cause of action constitutes an intangible property 
right that is grounded in tort.  See id.  Retroactive legislation that impacts property 
rights is constitutionally invalid where ―vested rights are adversely affected or 
destroyed or when a new obligation or duty is created or imposed, or an additional 
disability is established, in connection with transactions or considerations 
previously had or expiated.‖  Id. at 27 (quoting McCord v. Smith, 43 So. 2d 704, 
709 (Fla. 1949)).   
 
- 4 - 
The district court stated that when a cause of action accrues, it becomes a 
substantive vested right.  See id. at 27.  However, whether legislation may affect a 
vested right to a particular cause of action is dependent on ―the stage the right has 
attained when the legislation is enacted.‖  Id.  The Fourth District concluded that 
where a right of action has already accrued, new legislation enacted after that 
accrual which substantively affects the cause of action may not be retroactively 
applied to that cause of action.  See id. at 28.   
 
Based upon this conclusion, the Fourth District next considered whether 
prior to the Act, Florida law recognized a cause of action for damages arising from 
asbestosis without any physical impairment or the presence of cancer.  See id. at 
28.  The Fourth District concluded that case law from this Court and the Third 
District Court of Appeal clearly established that prior to the Act, emotional effects 
from contracting asbestosis were actionable under Florida law even though no 
physical impairment or cancer had resulted.  See id.  The district court recognized 
this Court‘s prior precedent that in cases where an alleged injury is a ―creeping-
disease,‖ such as asbestosis, the action accrues when the accumulated effects of the 
substance manifest themselves in a way which supplies some evidence of a causal 
relationship to the product.  See id. at 29 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 
So. 2d 533, 539 (Fla. 1985)).  The district court rejected the asbestos industry‘s 
contention that the causes of action of those manifesting injury were a mere 
 
- 5 - 
expectancy and not a vested cause of action.  See id. at 30.  Instead, the Fourth 
District explained that the Appellees had alleged a previous exposure to asbestos 
which resulted in the disease of asbestosis, and that the disease had manifested 
itself in some way.  See id. at 30-31.  As a result, the Fourth District concluded that 
for each of the Appellees, the cause of action had ―passed from an expectation to 
the accrual of the right to sue for damages.‖  Id. at 31.   
The Fourth District held that the Act could not be constitutionally applied to 
eliminate any existing vested property rights in the asbestos-related actions that 
were pending when the Act became effective.  See id. at 32.  The district court 
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), ―to the 
extent that it . . . stand[s] for a holding that the Act may be validly applied to 
asbestosis claimants with accrued causes of action for damages but without 
permanent impairments or malignancy.‖  Williams, 985 So. 2d at 32.  
The decision of the Fourth District is now before this Court for review. 
The Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act 
The Act was created by chapter 2005-274, Laws of Florida.  The preamble 
to the legislation provides multiple statements with regard to asbestos litigation, 
and section 774.202, Florida Statutes (2010), provides that the Act serves four 
purposes:  (1) to give priority to ―true‖ victims of asbestos (i.e., those claimants 
 
- 6 - 
who can demonstrate ―actual physical impairment‖ caused by asbestos exposure); 
(2) to preserve the rights of any individuals who have been exposed to asbestos to 
pursue compensation should they become ―impaired‖ in the future; (3) to enhance 
the ability of the judicial system to supervise and control asbestos litigation; and 
(4) to conserve the resources of defendants to permit compensation to cancer 
victims and individuals who are currently ―physically impaired,‖ while securing 
the right to similar compensation to individuals who may suffer ―physical 
impairment‖ in the future.  See § 774.202, Fla. Stat. (2010). 
 
Section 774.204(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that ―[p]hysical 
impairment of the exposed person, to which asbestos . . . exposure was a 
substantial contributing factor‖ is an essential element of an asbestos claim.  
Subsection (2) provides that ―[a] person may not file or maintain a civil action 
alleging a nonmalignant asbestos claim in the absence of a prima facie showing of 
physical impairment as a result of a medical condition to which exposure to 
asbestos was a substantial contributing factor.‖  The subsection details the highly 
technical elements of a prima facie claim for impairment.  For example, one 
element is: 
A determination by a qualified physician that asbestosis or diffuse 
pleural thickening, rather than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 
is a substantial contributing factor to the exposed person‘s physical 
impairment, based at a minimum on a determination that the exposed 
person has:  
 
- 7 - 
1. Total lung capacity, by plethysmography or timed gas 
dilution, below the predicted lower limit of normal;  
2. Forced vital capacity below the lower limit of normal and a 
ratio of FEV1 to FVC that is equal to or greater than the predicted 
lower limit of normal; or  
3. A chest X ray showing small, irregular opacities (s, t, u) 
graded by a certified B-reader as at least 2/1 on the ILO scale.   
§ 774.204(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2010).   
 
 
Section 774.205(2), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that a plaintiff in a 
civil action alleging an asbestos claim must ―include with the complaint or other 
initial pleading a written report and supporting test results constituting prima facie 
evidence of the exposed person‘s asbestos-related . . . physical impairment.‖  The 
Act states that ―[a] diagnosis that states that the medical findings and impairment 
are ‗consistent with‘ or ‗compatible with‘ exposure to asbestos does not meet the 
requirements of this subsection.‖  § 774.204(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2010).  Section 
774.205(2) also provides that for any plaintiff who had a claim pending on the 
effective date of the Act (which includes all of the Appellees), the report and test 
results must be filed at least thirty days before a trial date may be set.   
 
Section 774.206(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that the statute of 
limitations does not begin to run on an asbestos claim arising out of a 
nonmalignant condition ―until the exposed person discovers, or through the 
exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is 
physically impaired by an asbestos-related . . . condition.‖   
 
- 8 - 
 
Finally, the portion of the session law that provides the effective date of the 
Act states: 
This act shall take effect July 1, 2005.  Because the act expressly 
preserves the right of all injured persons to recover full compensatory 
damages for their loss, it does not impair vested rights.  In addition, 
because it enhances the ability of the most seriously ill to receive a 
prompt recovery, it is remedial in nature.  Therefore, the act shall 
apply to any civil action asserting an asbestos claim in which trial has 
not commenced as of the effective date of this act. 
 
Ch. 2005-274, § 10, at 2579, Laws of Fla.  As previously noted, ―[b]efore the Act 
was adopted, all of the plaintiffs in these cases had filed actions for damages based 
on various degrees of asbestosis . . . .‖  Williams, 985 So. 2d at 26.  The parties do 
not dispute that, as of the effective date of the Act, trial had not commenced in any 
of the Appellees‘ cases. 
ANALYSIS 
 
A district court decision declaring a statute unconstitutional is subject to de 
novo review by this Court.  See Fla. Dep‘t of Children & Families v. F.L., 880 So. 
2d 602, 607 (Fla. 2004).  Article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution guarantees 
to all persons the right to acquire, possess, and protect property.  Section 9 of the 
same article provides that ―[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property 
without due process of law.‖  Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.  The United States Supreme 
Court has clearly held that a cause of action is ―a species of property protected by 
the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Due Process Clause.‖  Logan v. Zimmerman Brush 
 
- 9 - 
Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 (1982).  Similarly, this Court has explained that ―[o]nce the 
defense of the statute of limitations has accrued, it is protected as a property 
interest just as the plaintiff‘s right to commence an action is a valid and protected 
property interest.‖  Wiley v. Roof, 641 So. 2d 66, 68 (Fla. 1994) (emphasis 
supplied) (citing Starnes v. Cayouette, 419 S.E. 2d 669 (Va. 1992)); see also 
R.A.M. of South Fla., Inc. v. WCI Communities, Inc., 869 So. 2d 1210, 1220 (Fla. 
2d DCA 2004) (―[O]nce a cause of action has accrued, the right to pursue that 
cause of action is generally considered a vested right.‖), review denied, 895 So. 2d 
406 (Fla. 2005). 
Vested Rights 
The parties strenuously debate whether the Appellees have a vested property 
interest in their right to pursue an action based on asbestos-related injuries.  Having 
reviewed the parties‘ arguments and Florida common law, we conclude that the 
Appellees do indeed possess such a vested right.  According to the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida: 
It is axiomatic that a cause of action for negligence, or products 
liability, or breach of warranty does not accrue until the complaining 
party sustains some type of damage.  A cause of action sounding in 
tort arises in the jurisdiction where the last act necessary to establish 
liability occurred.  Colhoun v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 265 So. 2d 18 
(Fla. 1972).  In Florida, the ―last act‖ is discovery of the damage. 
 
Wildenberg v. Eagle-Picher Industries, 645 F. Supp. 29, 30 (S.D. Fla. 1986); see 
also F.D.I.C. v. Stahl, 89 F.3d 1510, 1522 (11th Cir. 1996) (―Florida courts have 
 
- 10 - 
found that the limitations period does not begin to run until a plaintiff knew or 
should have known of the injury.‖).   
Prior to the Act, claimants with an asbestos-related disease unquestionably 
had a right under the common law to seek redress against the persons or entities 
that allegedly caused injury to them.  See, e.g., Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. 
Corcoran, 679 So. 2d 291, 291-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming judgment in 
favor of plaintiff for ―injury because of his exposure to asbestos‖); W.R. Grace & 
Company-Conn. v. Pyke, 661 So. 2d 1301, 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (affirming 
judgment in favor of plaintiff in asbestos personal injury action, but reversing 
award for loss of future earning capacity); Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 481 
So. 2d 517, 519, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (affirming ―substantial‖ money judgment 
against manufacturer of asbestos products); Brown v. Armstrong World Industries, 
Inc., 441 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (reversing summary judgment 
because whether plaintiff should have known that he had a cause of action against 
manufacturer for asbestos-related injuries was a genuine issue of material fact).   
With regard to asbestos-related diseases, we have held that an action accrues 
when the accumulated effects of the substance manifest in a way which supplies 
some evidence of the causal relationship to the manufactured product.  See Celotex 
Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So. 2d 533, 539 (Fla. 1985).  The parties diverge in their 
interpretation as to what constitutes a ―manifestation‖ of the disease.  The 
 
- 11 - 
Appellants contend that ultimate physical impairment symptoms as set forth in the 
statutory restrictions, such as reduced lung capacity and difficulty breathing, must 
be present before a disease is considered manifested.  Conversely, the Appellees 
contend that actual changes in the lung constitute injury and manifestation for 
accrual purposes.   
Prior to the Act, the common law did not require any particular symptoms to 
constitute ―manifestation‖ in connection with asbestos injuries.  Case law clearly 
demonstrates that particular physical symptoms were not required, and changes in 
the lung evidencing asbestos-related disease were sufficient to trigger a cause of 
action.  In Celotex Corp. v. Meehan, 523 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1988), this Court 
explained: 
Under Florida‘s discovery standard, the cause of action does 
not accrue, for limitations purposes, until the injured party discovers 
or has a ―duty to discover the act constituting an invasion of his legal 
rights.‖  Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So. 2d 331, 334 (Fla. 
1969).  Consequently, a medical diagnosis which revealed that the 
party was suffering from asbestos-related diseases would be the event 
that triggered Florida‘s statute of limitations unless it was shown that 
the party should have been aware of a cause of action before that time.  
In Florida, the statute does not begin to run until such a discovery 
occurs. 
Id. at 145 (emphasis supplied).  Thus, prior to the Act, a diagnosis of asbestos-
related disease triggered the accrual of a cause of action.  Contrary to the assertion 
of the asbestos industry and the dissent, the development of particular impairment 
symptoms as described in the Act has never been the legal factor in determining 
 
- 12 - 
―manifestation‖ or accrual under Florida law.  Accordingly, the claim of the 
asbestos industry that the Act is merely a codification of the common law and 
physical impairment symptoms have always been required for an asbestos-related 
disease to have ―manifested‖—a position that the dissent adopts—is patently 
incorrect.   
Moreover, the assertion that a minimum level of injury or damage is 
required to ―open the courthouse doors‖ for a plaintiff to seek redress against a 
tortfeasor for negligence is in direct contravention of the common law.   As 
recently as 2007, this Court explained the common law elements of a negligence 
cause of action: 
The claimant must first demonstrate that the defendant owed a ―duty, 
or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to 
conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others 
against unreasonable risks.‖  Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 
So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 2003) (quoting Prosser and Keeton on the 
Law of Torts § 30, at 164 (W. Page Keeton et al. eds., 5th ed.1984)).  
Second, the claimant must establish that the defendant failed to 
conform to that duty.  Id.  Third, there must be ―[a] reasonably close 
causal connection between the [nonconforming] conduct and the 
resulting injury‖ to the claimant.  Id.  Fourth, the claimant must 
demonstrate some actual harm.  Id. 
 
Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052, 1056 (Fla. 2007) (alterations in original) 
(emphasis supplied).   The phrase ―some actual harm‖ does not require a precise 
technical level or particular threshold of injury or impairment symptom that a 
plaintiff must satisfy to file an action.  Id.; see also Kneeland v. Tampa Northern R. 
 
- 13 - 
Co., 116 So. 48, 48 (Fla. 1927) (―In actions where negligence is the basis of 
recovery, it is not necessary for the declaration to set out the facts constituting the 
negligence, but an allegation of sufficient acts causing the injury, coupled with an 
averment that they were negligently done, will be sufficient.‖ (emphasis supplied)). 
Further, the contention of the Appellants, also advanced by the dissent, that a 
plaintiff must exhibit particular physical impairment symptoms of illness or injury 
for a cause of action to have vested is belied by our early case law.  In Lyng v. 
Rao, 72 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 1954), lightning struck a building in which the plaintiff 
worked.  Although she could not recall if she was struck by the lightning, after the 
incident she experienced pain in her chest and ―was stricken‖ to the extent that she 
was hospitalized.  Id. at 55.  Initially, her request for Workmen‘s Compensation 
benefits was denied because the only evidence of traumatic injury was based on the 
plaintiff‘s own statements.  See id. at 55-56.  This Court reversed the denial of 
benefits and stated: 
[T]he Deputy Commissioner fell into error because the effect of his 
construction of the word ―trauma‖ limited it to an outwardly visible 
bodily injury; a wound visible to the eye such as a cut, abrasion or the 
sort.  Trauma is defined in Black‘s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951) as, 
―In medical jurisprudence. A wound; any injury to the body caused by 
external violence.‖  In Webster‘s Collegiate Dictionary, (5th ed. 1943) 
the word is defined as, ―An injury, wound, shock or the resulting 
condition or neurosis.‖  (Emphasis added.)  We find no definition 
which limits the word to a visible injury.  Many serious accidental 
injuries—especially those affecting internal organs—are not visible to 
the eye, and yet we know that such constitute a great part of 
compensable injuries. 
 
- 14 - 
Id. at 56 (emphasis supplied).  The Court later relied upon Lyng in Clark v. 
Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, 107 So. 2d 609, 611-12 (Fla. 1958), when it 
held that a plaintiff who suffered an electric shock could recover for both bodily 
injury and emotional trauma even though the plaintiff exhibited no signs of burns.  
In reaching its determination, this Court opined that ―too much emphasis has been 
placed on the absence from the appellant‘s body of trauma such as burns, bruises 
or scars.‖   Id. at 612. 
 
Moreover, Florida common law does not and has never required an 
impairment or a particular manifestation of injury according to some arbitrarily 
adopted level before a cause of action accrues.  In Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling 
Company, 804 So. 2d 1234, 1241 (Fla. 2001), this Court held that an action for 
emotional distress could be maintained by plaintiffs who drank from a bottle that 
appeared to contain a used condom even though there was no accompanying 
discernable, particular physical injury or some level of impairment.   Similarly, in 
Way v. Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 260 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), 
a man drank from a soda bottle and, after finding what appeared to be a rat inside, 
felt nauseous and vomited.   The Second District Court of Appeal held that the man 
could maintain an action against the manufacturer even though he suffered no 
lingering physical injury or particular continuing impairment, but only a mental 
reaction, to the foreign object in the bottle.  Id. at 290. 
 
- 15 - 
 
The dissent evinces a principle totally foreign to Florida common law when 
it asserts that there has never been a right of recovery in Florida for an asbestos-
related injury unless a certain level of physical impairment has been demonstrated.  
First, this Court in Meehan specifically held that a cause of action accrued upon the 
diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease.  There was absolutely no mention of any 
requirement that plaintiffs meet and surpass a baseline level of impairment.  See 
Meehan, 523 So. 2d at 145.  Further, it is not necessary for this Court to have 
previously addressed the specific concept of how asbestos invades and damages 
the body.  Legal precedent and the common law principles clearly demonstrate and 
cover that an individual who sustains an injury due to the wrongful conduct of 
another—regardless of the particular level of physical symptoms or impairment—
may maintain a cause of action against the person or entity that allegedly inflicted 
the injury if injury has occurred.  See Clark, 107 So. 2d at 611-12; Hagan, 804 So. 
2d at 1241.  If there is no injury, there is simply no action; however, if there is 
proof of injury, there is no requirement of any particular level of impairment. 
Here, a foreign substance—asbestos fibers—were inhaled and became 
embedded in the lungs of the plaintiffs without their knowledge or consent.  This, 
like the electric shock suffered by the plaintiff in Clark, constitutes an actual injury 
that has been inflicted upon the bodies of the plaintiffs.  To contend, as the dissent 
does here, that a certain level of impairment is absolutely necessary for a cause of 
 
- 16 - 
action to accrue is incorrect and contrary to longstanding Florida common law.  
Instead of stating that our decision today adopts an unsupported, ―expansive 
concept‖ of harm, see dissenting op. at 28, the dissent should simply state the 
truth—that it disagrees with our prior precedent and believes the rights of 
Floridians to recover for negligently inflicted injuries should be significantly 
restricted based not upon injury but upon a schedule of impairments adopted by the 
legislative branch. 
When taken to its logical extreme, how broadly would the dissent interpret 
this elevated requirement to preclude the ordinary citizen from maintaining an 
action for an injury that has been suffered?  If a person swallows a hypodermic 
needle that was concealed in a soda can, would that person be precluded from 
filing an action until he or she exhibits visible symptoms of major internal injuries, 
such as vomiting blood, or a debilitating virus?  If a person is exposed to noxious 
fumes or toxic chemicals and develops a potentially fatal, but slowly progressing 
disease, and that person knows he or she is suffering from a degenerative disease 
and is slowly dying, must that person wait until a certain type of symptom or a 
specific level of impairment is demonstrated before seeking legal redress against 
the person or entity who allegedly caused this injury?   
The dissent mistakes and confuses the well-established concept of injury 
under Florida common law for a more strenuous concept of a legislative schedule 
 
- 17 - 
of impairment.  Contrary to the assertion of the dissent, the common law of Florida 
has never required individuals who have suffered an injury to meet an arbitrarily 
drawn threshold of physical impairment for a cause of action to accrue.  Were the 
opposite the case, and if the common law did operate on the basis of impairment 
rather than injury, cruel and arbitrary distinctions could be drawn to preclude 
severely injured citizens from maintaining actions against those who are 
responsible.    
Although both the Appellants and the dissent contend that the Appellees‘ 
injuries are negligible or minor and that they should be required to meet an 
elevated threshold (defined as ―permanent impairment‖ under the Act) to pursue a 
claim, this has never been required under the common law.  Instead, if a defendant 
challenges the severity or even the existence of damages, the common law 
prescribes that it is a matter for the jury to decide whether there has in fact been an 
injury and damage.  For example, in McIntyre v. McCloud, 334 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d 
DCA 1976), the Third District Court of Appeal stated: 
In this personal injury action, the jury found from the evidence 
that the plaintiff-appellant did not sustain the injuries alleged, which 
determination is unquestionably within the jury‘s province.  Even 
assuming arguendo, that a ―wrong‖ (in the form of negligence) was 
perpetrated by the defendants on the plaintiff, it is, nonetheless, well-
established in the common law that there is no valid cause of action 
where there is shown to exist, at the very most, a ―wrong‖ without 
―damage.‖ 
 
- 18 - 
Id. at 171-72 (emphasis supplied); see also Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line R.R. 
Co., 80 So. 2d 662, 667 (Fla. 1955) (quoting relevant jury instruction on pain and 
damages as providing, in relevant part, ―It would be your duty to determine from 
the evidence what sort of injuries the plaintiff received, if any, their character as 
producing or not producing pain, the mildness or the intensity of the pain, its 
possible duration, and allow such sum as would fairly compensate her for her pain 
and suffering, if any . . .‖ (emphasis supplied) (quoting Toll v. Waters, 189 So. 
393, 395 (Fla. 1939))); Leister v. Jablonski, 629 So. 2d 981, 981 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 
1993) (―While common experience tells us that there was some initial pain 
involved in this BB gun shooting, whether it was sufficient to justify compensable 
damages seems properly to be a jury question.‖  (emphasis supplied)). 
In the present case, it is clear that the main purpose of the Act is to alter the 
common law elements for an action arising from asbestos-related disease.  The 
preamble to the Act notes that ―the vast majority of asbestos claims are filed by 
individuals who allege that they have been exposed to asbestos and who may have 
some physical sign of exposure but who suffer no present asbestos-related 
impairment.‖  Ch. 2005-274, preamble, at 2564, Laws of Fla.  Further, one of the 
stated purposes of the Act is to give priority to the ―true‖ victims of asbestos.  See 
§ 774.202(1), Fla. Stat. (2010).  These statements demonstrate that the Act is 
intended to reverse years of common law precedent—precedent that the dissent 
 
- 19 - 
fails to consider and address—holding that a diagnosis of asbestos-related disease 
and injury, without regard to any particular threshold level of impairment suffered, 
constitutes an accrued cause of action that provides citizens vested rights to file 
actions based on the injuries.   
Here, medical and X-ray reports which are included in the appendix of the 
Appellants‘ initial brief confirm that each of the Appellees suffers from actual lung 
injuries that are consistent with asbestos-related disease.  Based upon well-
established common law precedent, we hold that the Appellees here had an accrued 
cause of action for the injuries they allegedly sustained due to asbestos exposure, 
and these causes of action constituted a property interest in which the Appellees 
had a vested right under article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution.  See Wiley, 
641 So. 2d at 68; Meehan, 523 So. 2d at 145. 
Retroactivity 
Having determined that the Appellees have vested causes of action, we must 
next consider whether the Act may be applied retroactively to those causes of 
action.  A two-part test is utilized to determine whether a statute may be applied 
retroactively: 
First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for 
the statute to apply retroactively.  Second, if such an intent is clearly 
expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application 
would violate any constitutional principles.  See Metro. Dade County 
v. Chase Fed. Hous. Corp., 737 So. 2d 494, 499 (Fla. 1999). 
 
 
- 20 - 
Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., Inc., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010); see 
also Chase Fed. Hous. Corp., 737 So. 2d at 499 (―[T]he retroactive operation of 
statutes can be harsh and implicate due process concerns.‖).  The Act specifically 
provides that it is to apply to ―any civil action asserting an asbestos claim in which 
trial has not commenced as of the effective date of this act.‖  Ch. 2005-274, § 10, 
at 2579, Laws of Fla.  Thus, express language in the chapter law creating the Act 
demonstrates that the Legislature intended that the Act apply retroactively.  
Accordingly, the main issue we must determine is whether retroactive application 
of the Act violates the Florida Constitution.  As previously discussed this Court 
will not apply a statute retroactively if it ―impairs vested rights, creates new 
obligations, or imposes new penalties.‖  State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 
658 So. 2d 55, 61 (Fla. 1995); see also McCord v. Smith, 43 So. 2d 704, 708-09 
(Fla. 1949) (noting that a retroactive provision of legislation is invalid where it 
adversely affects or destroys vested rights).  
The session law creating the Act announces that its provisions are remedial 
in nature, and do not impact vested rights.  See Ch. 2005-274, § 10, at 2579, Laws 
of Fla.  However, we have previously explained that ―[j]ust because the Legislature 
labels something as being remedial . . . does not make it so.‖  Laforet, 658 So. 2d 
at 61.  Here, the Act provides that particular physical impairment symptoms are 
now an essential new element of an asbestos cause of action, a requirement that 
 
- 21 - 
never existed before.  See § 774.204(1), Fla. Stat. (2010).  Further, to establish 
impairment, the statute would require a claimant to demonstrate ―a medical 
condition to which asbestos was a substantial contributing factor.‖  Id. § 
774.204(2) (emphasis supplied).    
Application of the Act to the Appellees does not merely impair their vested 
rights—it destroys them.  There is no alternative remedy.  The vested rights simply 
vanish.  Prior to the July 1, 2005, effective date of the Act, potential asbestos 
claimants fell into one of two categories:   
Group A:  Claim has not accrued 
Group B:  Claim has accrued 
Individuals who have not yet been 
diagnosed with an asbestos-related 
disease. 
Individuals who have been diagnosed 
with an asbestos-related disease. 
 
Pursuant to this Court‘s decision in Meehan, those individuals who had been 
diagnosed with asbestos-related disease (Group B) had accrued causes of action for 
damages that they allegedly suffered due to asbestos exposure.  See Meehan, 523 
So. 2d at 145.  On the other hand, claimants under Group A did not have an 
accrued cause of action. 
Subsequent to the Act, the prior members of Group B are now split into two 
separate categories: 
Group A:  Claim has not 
accrued 
Group B-1:  Claim has 
accrued 
Group B-2:  Claim has 
accrued 
Individuals who have not 
yet been diagnosed with 
Individuals who have 
been diagnosed with an 
Individuals who have 
been diagnosed with an 
 
- 22 - 
an asbestos-related 
disease. 
asbestos-related disease 
but cannot satisfy the 
standard for impairment 
under the Act. 
asbestos-related disease 
and can satisfy the 
standard for impairment 
under the Act. 
 
The Appellees concede that they fall under Group B-1 and cannot satisfy the 
restrictive standards for symptoms of impairment required by the Act to maintain 
an action for an asbestos-related disease.  While claimants in Group B-1 previously 
had an accrued cause of action, which is a form of constitutionally protected 
property, see Wiley, 641 So. 2d at 68; Logan, 455 U.S. at 428, subsequent to the 
Act, their causes of action simply no longer exist.   
Additionally, many of the claimants who fall under Group B-1 do manifest 
symptoms of their asbestos-related disease and are ―impaired‖ as that term is 
commonly understood.   However, because these claimants cannot demonstrate the 
specific physical impairment symptoms that are mandated by the Act, their vested 
causes of action would be extinguished, and no redress would exist for their 
injuries.  It is truly ironic that many of the injured persons in the cases relied upon 
by the dissent in support of its incorrect assertion that a certain level of physical 
impairment has always been required under the common law for a cause of action 
to accrue might not be able to satisfy the rigorous requirements of the new Act if 
they attempted to file their claims today.  For example, in Brown v. Armstrong 
World Industries, Inc., 441 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the plaintiff 
 
- 23 - 
complained of shortness of breath and was diagnosed with an asbestos-related 
disease.  In Meehan, one of the plaintiffs experienced ―bronchial problems,‖ which 
resulted from asbestosis.  523 So. 2d at 147.  The dissent fails to consider or 
accommodate the reality that probably neither of these injured persons could 
demonstrate the highly technical and elevated level of ―physical impairment‖ that 
is required under the new Act.  See § 774.204, Fla. Stat. (2010).  If not, these 
previously existing rights to file actions for recovery based upon an asbestos-
related disease and injury would have been extinguished.  In this manner, the Act 
indubitably operates to destroy vested rights for all claimants who are members of 
Group B-1.  Thus, even though the preamble to the Act contends that it does not 
impair vested rights, the contrary is actually true as a matter of law.1    
 
This Court has invalidated retroactive applications of statutes that have 
attempted to substantively alter the existing law.  As recently as February 2010, 
this Court held that a statutory amendment that required the filing of a notice of 
                                         
 
1.  Moreover, the Act substantively impacts even those claimants whose 
causes of action accrued prior to the Act that can satisfy the heightened impairment 
requirement (i.e., claimants who fall under group B-2).  Prior to the Act, these 
injured persons were not burdened with establishing a minimum level of particular 
impairment.  Now, they too must meet the new standard of impairment articulated 
in the Act to avoid dismissal of their cases.  We have held that ―a statute that 
achieves a ‗remedial purpose by creating substantive new rights or imposing new 
legal burdens‘ is treated as a substantive change in the law.‖  Smiley v. State, 966 
So. 2d 330, 334 (Fla. 2007) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Arrow Air, Inc. v. 
Walsh, 645 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1994)).    
 
- 24 - 
intent to litigate as a condition precedent to the initiation of an action for overdue 
insurance benefits constituted a substantive change in the law which could not be 
retroactively applied to insureds who had received an insurance contract before the 
effective date of the statute.  See Menendez, 35 So. 2d at 879-80.  We explained 
the statute as it existed before and after the amendment as follows: 
Before the addition of the statutory presuit notice provision, 
section 627.736 did not require an insured to provide notice to an 
insurer before filing an action for overdue benefits.  PIP benefits 
became overdue if the insurer failed to pay within thirty days after 
receiving notice from the insured of the fact of a covered loss and the 
amount of such loss.  § 627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000).  Any overdue 
payment was subject to a ten percent simple interest rate per year.  § 
627.736(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000).  However, if the insurer had 
reasonable proof to establish that it was not responsible for the 
payment, the payment was not overdue.  § 627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. 
(2000). 
In contrast, the statute as amended in 2001 requires an insured 
to provide a presuit notice of intent to initiate litigation and provides 
an insurer additional time to pay an overdue claim.  § 627.736(11)(a), 
(d), Fla. Stat. (2001).  Second, the amendment mandates that the 
payment from the insurer must include interest and penalties not 
exceeding $250.  § 627.736(11)(d), Fla. Stat. (2001).  Third, if the 
insurer pays within the additional time provided by the statute, the 
payment precludes the insured from bringing suit for late payment or 
nonpayment and shields the insurer from a claim for attorneys‘ fees. 
Id.  Finally, the amendment tolls the statute of limitations.  § 
627.736(11)(e), Fla. Stat. (2001). 
 
Id. at 878.  We concluded that the amended statute was substantive in nature 
because it (1) potentially relieved an insurer of an obligation to pay attorneys‘ fees; 
(2) created a ―safe harbor‖ that allowed an additional period of time for an insurer 
to pay a claim; and (3) postponed the ability of an insured to bring suit for overdue 
 
- 25 - 
benefits.  See id. at 879.  Based upon this conclusion, this Court held that 
retroactive application of the statute was impermissible.  See id. at 880. 
Moreover, this Court has held that statutes that operate to abolish or abrogate 
a preexisting right, defense, or cause of action cannot be applied retroactively.  
See, e.g., Wiley, 641 So. 2d at 68-69 (statutory amendment which allowed victim 
to commence an action for damages which was previously barred by statute of 
limitations violated due process clause of Florida Constitution; ―[o]nce an action is 
barred, a property right to be free from a claim has accrued‖); Agency for Health 
Care Admin. v. Assoc. Industries of Fla., Inc., 678 So. 2d 1239, 1254 (Fla. 1996) 
(portion of legislative act that abolished statute of repose for claims that were 
already barred was unconstitutional in violation of due process (citing Wiley, 641 
So. 2d at 68)); Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658, 665-66 (Fla. 1982) (statutory 
amendment that would abolish plaintiff‘s right to recover against state officers, 
employees, and agents for negligent acts could not be retroactively applied). 
Retroactive application of the Act here would operate to completely abolish 
the Appellees‘ vested rights in accrued causes of action for asbestos-related injury.   
For this reason, we conclude that the Act cannot be constitutionally applied to 
them.2   In reaching this conclusion, we note that allowing the Appellees to proceed 
                                         
 
2.  Although not argued by the parties, we agree with the analysis of the 
Fourth District Court of Appeal that the unconstitutional portions of the Act cannot 
 
- 26 - 
with their causes of action will not automatically result in millions of dollars in 
judgments against the Appellants.  The Appellees must demonstrate that the 
Appellants caused whatever injuries the Appellees are alleged to have suffered, the 
extent of the injury must be determined, and a jury must determine the amount of 
damages, if any, as compensation for loss.   
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the holding of the Fourth District in 
Williams v. American Optical Corp., 985 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), that 
retroactive application of the Act to the Appellees, and other claimants who had 
accrued causes of action for asbestos-related disease pending on the effective date 
of the Act, is impermissible because it violates the due process clause of the 
Florida Constitution.  We disapprove the decision of the Third District in 
DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Hurst, 949 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), to the 
extent it is inconsistent with this opinion. 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which 
 POLSTON, J., concurs. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
                                                                                                                                   
be severed from the remainder, and the Act as a whole must fail as applied to the 
Appellees.  See Williams, 985 So. 2d at 32.   
 
- 27 - 
 
CANADY, C.J., dissenting. 
 
Because there was no settled law in Florida establishing a right of recovery 
on asbestos-related claims without a showing of impairment of health, the 
application of the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act (the Act) in the 
plaintiff appellees‘ cases does not abrogate any vested rights.  No case decided in 
Florida prior to the adoption of the Act recognized a right of recovery for a 
plaintiff asserting an asbestos-related claim whose health had not been adversely 
affected.  The common law did not establish that a cognizable injury based on 
asbestos exposure occurs without the impairment of the plaintiff‘s health.  I 
therefore dissent from the majority‘s holding that the Act interferes with vested 
causes of action. 
 
None of the cases relied on by the majority recognize any asbestos-related 
claim by a plaintiff whose health was unimpaired.  In certain of the cases relied on 
by the majority, the nature of the asbestos-related injury claimed by the plaintiff is 
simply not discussed.  See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Corcoran, 679 So. 2d 
291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Pyke, 661 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 
3d DCA 1995).  In other cases relied on by the majority, however, it is clear that 
the plaintiff claimed to be suffering from the effects of asbestos exposure and 
relied on symptoms of disease to establish the tort claim.  In Brown v. Armstrong 
World Industries, Inc., 441 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the court states 
 
- 28 - 
that the plaintiff testified at trial to visiting physicians and ―complaining of 
shortness of breath.‖  The Brown court makes further reference to the plaintiff‘s 
―physical disability.‖  Id.  In Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 481 So. 2d 517, 
529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the court‘s lengthy analysis is punctuated by the 
observation that the plaintiff‘s ―asbestosis certainly provided him with a chronic, 
painful and concrete reminder that he has been injuriously exposed to a substantial 
amount of asbestos.‖  The plaintiff in Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So. 2d 533, 
534 (Fla. 1985), had ―asbestos-related cancer.‖  Similarly, two of the plaintiffs in 
Celotex Corp. v. Meehan, 523 So. 2d 141, 147 (Fla. 1988), had been diagnosed 
with mesothelioma; the third plaintiff was diagnosed with ―bronchial problems.‖  
In all these cases, there is not a hint of any plaintiff recovering for mere ―changes 
in the lung.‖  Majority op. at 11.  The case law provides no basis for concluding 
that prior to enactment of the Act it was settled in Florida law that a cause of action 
existed for an asbestos exposure plaintiff whose health had not suffered as a 
consequence of the exposure. 
 
The majority errs in adopting an expansive concept of cognizable harm that 
is unsupported not only by the Florida case law but also by general principles of 
tort law.  The majority‘s divergence from general principles of tort law is 
illustrated by the definition of physical harm in the Third Restatement of Torts, 
which requires showing more than mere ―changes in the lungs‖ to establish a 
 
- 29 - 
cognizable injury.  The restatement contains the following definition: ―‗Physical 
harm‘ means the physical impairment of the human body (‗bodily harm‘) . . . . 
Bodily harm includes physical injury, illness, disease, impairment of bodily 
function, and death.‖  Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and 
Emotional Harm § 4 (2005).  This definition limits physical harm to circumstances 
in which some ill effect exists.  ―[A]ny level of physical impairment is sufficient 
for liability,‖ id. cmt. c, but changes in the body that have no ill effect are not 
sufficient to establish a legally cognizable bodily harm.  A ―change in the physical 
condition of a person‘s body‖ ―counts as a harmful impairment‖ only if that change 
is ―detrimental.‖  Id.  The Restatement Third definition is in line with the definition 
of ―harm‖ in the Restatement Second.  See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 7 cmt. 
b. (1965) (―Physical changes or alterations may be either beneficial, detrimental, or 
of no consequence to a person.  In so far as physical changes have a detrimental 
effect on a person, that person suffers harm.‖). 
 
This understanding of bodily harm has been applied in the context of 
asbestos litigation to deny recovery to plaintiffs presenting claims similar to those 
at issue here.  See In re Hawaii Fed. Asbestos Cases, 734 F. Supp. 1563, 1567 (D. 
Haw. 1990) (―Plaintiffs must show a compensable harm by adducing objective 
testimony of a functional impairment due to asbestos exposure. . . .  [T]he mere 
presence of asbestos fibers, pleural thickening or pleural plaques in the lung 
 
- 30 - 
unaccompanied by an objectively verifiable functional impairment is not 
enough.‖); Owens-Illinois v. Armstrong, 591 A.2d 544, 561 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 
1991) (―[M]ere alteration of the pleura is [not] a legally compensable injury.‖), 
aff‘d in part and rev‘d in part on other grounds, 604 A.2d 47 (Md. 1992); Simmons 
v. Pacor, Inc. 674 A.2d 232, 237 (Pa. 1996) (―[A]symptomatic pleural thickening 
is not a compensable injury which gives rise to a cause of action.‖). 
 
Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio relied on this understanding of 
cognizable harm in rejecting a challenge to an Ohio statute similar to the Act.  The 
court concluded that the plaintiff ―has not established that the settled common law 
in Ohio permitted tort recovery for asymptomatic pleural thickening in asbestos 
exposure cases prior to the enactment of [the challenged statute]‖ and that the 
statute therefore did not interfere with vested rights.  Ackison v. Anchor Packing 
Co., 897 N.E.2d 1118, 1126 (Ohio 2008). 
 
The United States Supreme Court has likewise recognized that asbestos-
exposure claims are not cognizable where the plaintiff is not suffering from disease 
symptoms.  In Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424, 427 
(1997), the court held that a worker making a claim under the Federal Employers‘ 
Liability Act (FELA) based on asbestos exposure ―cannot recover unless, and until, 
he manifests symptoms of a disease.‖  The court‘s analysis of the statutory claim 
was based in significant part on ―common-law precedent.‖  Id. at 432.  
 
- 31 - 
Subsequently, in Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135, 141 
(2003) (emphasis added), the court, applying the rule laid down in Buckley, 
recognized ―actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to 
asbestos‖ as a proper basis for a FELA claim.  The court stated that asbestosis is a 
―chronic disease‖ with ―symptoms includ[ing] shortness of breath, coughing, and 
fatigue.‖  Id. at 141, 142 n.2.  The court recognized that ―[a]sbestosis is ‗a chronic, 
painful and concrete reminder that [a plaintiff] has been injuriously exposed to a 
substantial amount of asbestos.‘‖  Id. at 155-56 (alteration in original) (quoting 
Eagle-Picher, 481 So. 2d at 529).  The court went on to note the distinction 
between ―asymptomatic asbestos plaintiffs‖ and plaintiffs who have ―suffered real 
physical harm,‖ and specifically cited commentary ―classifying plaintiffs with 
pleural thickening as asymptomatic.‖  Id. at 156.  Ayers and Buckley—which rely 
on the common law—support the conclusion that there is no settled common law 
right for an asbestos-exposure plaintiff to recover for ―changes in the lung‖ without 
accompanying impairment of health. 
 
The decision of the Fourth District Court should be reversed. 
POLSTON, J., concurs. 
 
 
Four Cases: 
 
Two Appeals from the District Court of Appeal – Statutory or Constitutional 
Invalidity 
 
 
- 32 - 
And two Applications for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Fourth District - Case No. 4D07-405 and 4D07-407 
 
 
(Palm Beach County) 
 
Gary L. Sasso, Matthew J. Conigliaro, and Christine R. Davis of Carlton Fields, 
P.A., Tampa, Florida; and M. Stephen Smith, Michael R. Holt, and Marty 
Fulgueira Elfenbein of Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell, P.A., Miami, Florida; 
 
 
for Appellants/Petitioners 
 
Joel S. Perwin, Miami, Florida, James L. Ferraro, David A. Jagolinzer and Case A. 
Dam of The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellees/Respondents 
 
Frank Cruz-Alvarez of Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, Miami, Florida and Mark 
A. Behrens of Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, Washington, D.C., on behalf of The 
Associated Industries of Florida, American Insurance Association, Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States of America, American Tort Reform Association, 
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, National Association of 
Mutual Insurance Companies, American Chemistry Council, and National 
Association of Manufacturers; Caryn L. Bellus of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami, 
Florida, on behalf of Florida Defense Lawyers Association; Pamela Jo Bondi, 
Attorney General, Scott D. Makar, Solicitor General, Craig D. Feiser, Deputy 
Solicitor General, Russell S. Kent, Special Counsel for Litigation, and Ashley E. 
Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of the Office of 
Attorney General; Steven G. Gieseler, Stuart, Florida, on behalf of Pacific Legal 
Foundation; Gordon James, III, Valerie Shea of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran and 
Arnold, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, David J. Schenck of Jones Day, Dallas, 
Texas, Gregory R. Hanthorn and Amber B. Shushan of Jones Day, Atlanta, 
Georgia, on behalf of North Safety Products, Inc. and Saint-Gobain Abrasives, 
Inc.; and  Philip M. Burlington and Nichole J. Segal of Burlington and 
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida, in behalf of Florida Justice 
Association, 
 
 
for Amici Curiae