SB 666
Determining liability for exposure to asbestos or silica
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take action- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House of Delegates
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill changes how liability is determined for illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos or silica. It establishes a ‘two-disease rule,’ meaning a person’s lawsuit won’t begin until they receive a medical diagnosis or discover evidence of an illness, or upon their death. The bill also clarifies that non-cancerous conditions related to these exposures are treated as separate lawsuits and that damages for fear or increased risk of future disease are not awarded. Finally, it limits lawsuits against coal mining equipment manufacturers to a specific timeframe.
Key provisions
- Establishes a ‘two-disease rule’ for asbestos and silica claims, delaying the start of a lawsuit until a diagnosis or discovery of illness.
- Allows lawsuits for non-cancerous conditions related to asbestos and silica exposure.
- Prohibits awards for fear or increased risk of future disease in these lawsuits.
- Limits lawsuits against coal mining equipment manufacturers to a 10- or 12-year period from the equipment’s sale or delivery.
- Clarifies that settlements and agreements made before the law’s effective date remain valid.
- Specifies that an asbestos or silica action arising out of a nonmalignant condition is a distinct cause of action from an action for an asbestos-related or silica-related cancer.
Who is affected
- Workers exposed to asbestos or silica
- Individuals with asbestos-related or silica-related illnesses
- Coal mining industry
- Manufacturers of coal mining equipment
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours