Personal injury mass torts, like litigation over asbestos exposure or opioid addiction, put a unique strain on the judicial system, overwhelming dockets and creating complex, protracted litigation that can create financial uncertainty for defendants and functionally deny claims to litigants who are often suffering from severe health issues. Efforts to resolve the biggest, most complex mass torts through existing judicial aggregation have yet to meaningfully survive appellate review because of due process, fairness concerns, and the strictures of American civil procedure, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma being the latest potential blow.
This Note will argue that stakeholders—parties, their attorneys, judges, and policymakers—should prioritize resolving mass torts via Claims Resolution Facilities rather than seeking the distant prospect of global aggregative relief via class actions, multi-district litigation, or bankruptcy. In doing so, it joins an early wave of work incor- porating the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. into aggregation doctrine. It also builds on existing scholarship on Claims Resolution Facilities by highlighting a recent success: a Facility used to resolve claims in the Monsanto Roundup multi-district litigation.
Aggregation has been unable to effectively provide a template for efficient, fair resolution of complex personal injury mass torts. This Note will chart the doctrinal history of aggregation’s limitations and contrast it with Claims Resolution Facilities’ historical ability to effectively resolve mass torts. It will then conclude by discussing best practices in Claim Resolution Facilities design and uplifting two models for future stakeholders to consider.
