What Asbestos Litigation Trends Teach Us About Broader Toxic Torts

Asbestos litigation is the longest-running mass tort in U.S. history, with claims dating back to the 1960s and 1970s, primarily involving asbestosis at that time. While advancements in the fields of epidemiology, toxicology and genetics have changed the landscape over time, asbestos-related matters persist as a large portion of all toxic tort litigation. 

At the 2025 DRI Asbestos Medicine Conference,  presenters reported that nearly $3 billion in toxic tort awards (excluding settlements) have been issued since 2021. After a temporary decline during COVID, asbestos filings have returned to pre-pandemic levels. Although the incidence of asbestos-related disease should be declining each year—given historic usage patterns in the U.S., particularly for amphibole asbestos—nearly half of this five-year total was awarded in 2025 alone. In that year, $1.4 billion in verdicts were issued across only 20 trials (representing less than 0.5% of total filings resulting in verdicts) and plaintiffs prevailed in 75% of those cases, a five-year high. 

Many epidemiologists now estimate that the majority of mesothelioma cases are not asbestos-induced, but rather a result of genetic susceptibility, aging and the spontaneous development of the disease (independent of environmental factors). Fewer asbestos-related cases are expected, and by 2040 some estimate they will almost entirely cease to exist. 

Why Asbestos Trends Matter

Although the exact annual size of toxic tort payouts in the U.S. is unknown, asbestos is estimated to represent roughly a quarter of today’s chemical toxic tort litigation. In 2025, the average asbestos complaint named 72 defendants (2025 DRI Asbestos Medicine Conference). 

Asbestos litigation trends offer valuable insight into the current climate of toxic torts more broadly, including prevailing juror attitudes, jurisdictional patterns, the increasing risk of large verdicts and the types of arguments that resonate in the courtroom. These trends can inform how companies assess risk and prepare for future litigation across a wide range of substances.  

Several clients have noted that evolving public perceptions of large corporations have influenced traditional assumptions about juror profiles. At the same time, some plaintiff firms are investing heavily in advertising, which may contribute to heightened public awareness and, in some instances, oversimplified or incomplete messaging around risk. 

In parallel, a changing regulatory environment and inconsistent interpretations of scientific research can make it more difficult for jurors to evaluate complex exposure and causation issues. Together, these factors can complicate efforts to present balanced, science-based perspectives at trial. 

Understanding A Key Driver for Asbestos Related Disease

There is consensus in the scientific community that inflammation plays a central role in asbestos-related carcinogenesis. Research indicates that aggravated phagocytosis and cell death contribute to increased cancer risk. Supporting evidence includes in vitro studies showing that cells exposed to asbestos fibers do not themselves transform into mesothelioma, as well as animal studies demonstrating that modulation of inflammatory pathways—such as those involving the HMGB1 protein—can drastically reduce mesothelioma rates. 

At the 2025 DRI conference, Dr. Dennis Paustenbach, CIH, DABT and Michael Stevens presented on biologically safe doses for different types of asbestos—i.e., exposure levels not reasonably considered causal for disease. Scientific evidence continues to accumulate, showing that asbestos, like every known carcinogen, has threshold doses below which adverse health effects do not occur. Multiple scientific approaches are now converging on similar threshold values.  

Preparing for and Preventing Litigation 

The asbestos litigation trends and latest evidence give insight into how companies must be prepared to address allegations that may not always be grounded in current scientific consensus. This reality underscores the importance of long-term, science-based litigation strategies. 

Recent verdicts, many of which include substantial punitive damages, highlight the importance of providing juries with historical and contemporaneous knowledge about chemical toxicity and clearly explaining context around industry standards, employer responsibilities and evolving scientific understanding. Without this framing, jurors may unintentionally misinterpret both the science and the role of individual defendants. 

Jurors rely on information they can understand and trust. For that reason, close collaboration between experts and counsel is essential to ensure clear messaging and to address potential misconceptions. At TRC, we view our role as strategic partners in litigation, combining technical expertise with effective communication. 

Beyond individual cases, TRC works with clients to proactively analyze and publish exposure data and risk assessments. These peer-reviewed publications can help deter filings, support dispositive motions, and provide judges and juries with reliable, accessible scientific information.