MEALEY’S® LITIGATION REPORT: Artificial Intelligence
AI-Driven Over-Naming In Asbestos Litigation: Legislative Protections Are Needed
By Mary Margaret Gay and Sarah Beth Jones

Introduction

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are turning to artificial intelligence (AI) to identify potentially liable defendants to sue in asbestos cases. An unwelcome byproduct of the use of AI technology for this purpose is the potential for more lawsuits against companies with tenuous or nonexistent links to plaintiffs’ claims, a practice known as “over-naming.”[1]

​

Since the bankruptcy of most traditional asbestos defendants in the early 2000s, there has been a widespread and ongoing effort by plaintiffs’ attorneys to identify and pursue claims against solvent companies, including many with highly remote connections to asbestos exposure. Legal strategies have shifted to target secondary or peripheral companies, some with little or no connection to asbestos products. Unsupported claims are often dismissed, but not until after a business has been forced to pay defense costs it cannot recoup. When added together across multiple filings, the wasted expenditures are substantial. The introduction of AI for automated document generation, including initial complaints, is exacerbating this problem, reinforcing the need for state legislation to address over-naming in asbestos cases.

​

I. Over-Naming of Companies Continues to Increase

In the early 1980s, over 300 different defendants had been named in asbestos cases.[2] This number skyrocketed following the exit of the “Big Dusties” (former insulation manufacturers) from the tort system in the early 2000s. The “Bankruptcy Wave” left asbestos plaintiffs’ attorneys scrambling to find and name still-solvent companies in lawsuits.[3] Attorneys also realized that the asbestos litigation landscape could be expanded by targeting additional parties, even those with limited direct involvement with asbestos products. The asbestos litigation became a never-ending search for new defendants, leading to exponential growth in the number of companies sued.

​

RAND estimated that 8,000 companies had been named as defendants in asbestos litigation through 2002, and noted this was “probably an underestimate.”[4] By 2023, almost 12,200 unique defendants had been named on complaints, according to KCIC, a nationally recognized source for asbestos case and filing information.[5] The number of companies named in asbestos cases continues to increase, with some companies being named in their first asbestos lawsuits each year — more than fifty years after the landmark case of Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.[6] paved the way for successful litigation against the asbestos industry.

​

As a consequence of over-naming, the average number of defendants named in asbestos complaints continues to increase. In the Borel case, typical of early asbestos cases, the plaintiff named “eleven manufacturers of asbestos insulation materials used by him during his working career.”[7] A 1983 RAND report found that “an average of 20 defendants” were named in asbestos cases at the time.[8] By 2024, “there were 75 unique defendants named per lawsuit filed — continuing the slight increases seen over the past few years,” according to KCIC.[9] Some recent complaints in asbestos cases have named “well over 400” defendants.[10]

​

II. Over-Naming Drains Resources and Impedes Justice

The aggressive search for solvent defendants, and apparent lack of meaningful due diligence by many asbestos plaintiffs’ firms, has led to mass filings of unsupported claims against many companies. According to KCIC, “it is believed that many defendants are named frequently with no proof of exposure.”[11] Indeed, KCIC’s founder has said, “It is common for us to see mesothelioma dismissal rates above 90%.”[12] Likewise, a prominent insurer has said, “Very many defendants get dismissed 85-95% of the time from these lawsuits for zero dollars.”[13]

​

Over-named asbestos defendants are typically dismissed without payment, but not until they have been subjected to costly pre-trial discovery and other significant legal expenses that may include court-mandated mediation. As commentators have explained, “Defendant companies can spend thousands of dollars in defense costs and loss of productivity to be released from cases in which there was never proof of exposure. Litigation costs start on day one and may continue for years until an erroneously named defendant is dismissed.”[14]

​

Many other companies, especially small companies with few resources, choose to settle instead of bear the cost of litigation to extricate themselves from weak or meritless cases. These settlements have allowed plaintiffs’ attorneys to create a business model naming large numbers of companies with little or no proof of exposure, pressuring the defendants into settlements, regardless of whether they were actually responsible for the exposure. Money is at the root of this over-naming scheme and companies with no proven or factual connection to asbestos exposures are left paying the costs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform explains, “The reason companies are named as defendants, even when they have little or nothing to do with the alleged harm, is simple: plaintiffs’ lawyers want more money.”[15]

​

The over-naming problem in asbestos cases is confirmed by high dismissal rates in the litigation. Recent studies in West Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania have detailed the large number of dismissals from the trial case dockets over the past several years.[16] Court dockets throughout the country show that in many cases less than 10% of companies per case pay settlements.

​

III. AI and Technology Amplify the Impact of Over-Naming

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in asbestos litigation are increasingly leveraging emerging AI tools and online databases — often containing incomplete or inaccurate records — to identify and over-name companies as defendants, amplifying the number of parties drawn into costly and often unsubstantiated litigation. Over the years, plaintiff law firms built vast databases of historical records, including company documents, jobsite reports, and corporate filings. These databases have been used to identify new sources of asbestos exposure across a broad spectrum of industries. In more recent years, advancements in technology, particularly AI, have enhanced this business model. Plaintiff’s firms rely heavily on AI expansive tools and sophisticated databases to identify company names by analyzing historical records, jobsite data, product histories, corporate records, acquisition data, and other relevant sources much faster than manual research. DevSet AI highlights its revolutionary technology integration of ChatGPT-4, which assists plaintiffs and their lawyers:

​

Today, with the advancements in technology, artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have emerged as valuable tools in providing support for asbestos litigation. ChatGPT-4, a state-of-the-art language model developed by OpenAI, can aid legal professionals and individuals seeking justice by simplifying complex legal terms and processes in asbestos-related cases… ChatGPT-4 becomes an indispensable tool in the pursuit of justice for individuals affected by asbestos exposure.[17]

 

These systems, however, often make broad assumptions based on indirect or outdated connections. For example, the mere fact that a company acquired another entity decades ago — regardless of operational overlap or knowledge of asbestos use — may flag it as a target. This results in companies being named in litigation despite having no direct involvement in manufacturing, distributing, or installing asbestos-containing products relevant to a plaintiff’s claims. Additionally, the technology may inaccurately link a modern company in 2025 to an entirely different entity from decades ago due to similar or identical names, leading to mistaken assumptions about asbestos liability based on flawed or outdated information.

​

In 2024, J-M Manufacturing Co. filed a lawsuit against the law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP alleging fraudulent litigation tactics in asbestos cases.[18] The complaint included allegations related to naming defendant companies in lawsuits that were not related to the plaintiff's exposure. While the lawsuit did not explicitly mention the use of AI, the described tactics suggest a pattern of over-naming defendants, which could be facilitated by AI tools. The growing reliance on AI-generated information is problematic, especially when plaintiffs’ attorneys file lawsuits without thoroughly reviewing or verifying the accuracy of the data.

​

The algorithmic assumptions are compounded by the regenerative nature of AI and the databases that self-source information. AI systems often latch onto a company’s name after a single mention in a complaint, and due to their self-reinforcing algorithms and reliance on interconnected databases, that name is repeatedly propagated without further verification, increasing the risk of misidentification and over-naming. Company defendants have recounted being named in large influxes of asbestos cases within months of their first asbestos lawsuit.

​

AI-driven over-naming risks shifting asbestos litigation from a fact-driven inquiry about causation into a dragnet-style approach based on questionable corporate linkages. The technology blurs the line between exposure and liability, threatening due process for defendants and clogging the courts with unnecessary litigation. Overreliance on AI often leads to naming companies without any verified evidence of exposure, shifting the burden of disproving involvement onto defendants who should never have been sued in the first place.

​

IV. Over-naming Reforms Are Needed to Protect Companies

Technological advances are significantly intensifying the over-naming problem nationwide, subjecting companies to mounting legal pressure and forcing many to defend against claims based on tenuous or inaccurate information. While technology may offer efficiencies in research, its use must be balanced by rigorous legal standards of proof and relevance.

​

Recent legislative reforms are aimed at reducing wasteful litigation and preserving resources for plaintiffs who demonstrate an injury related to the named companies. Over-naming reform has been adopted in Alabama, Arizona, Iowa, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.[19] These laws require plaintiffs to disclose the basis for their claims against individual defendants and produce supporting documentation before moving forward with their cases.

​

State laws requiring basic disclosures in asbestos cases aim to curb speculative claims and ensure that plaintiffs can demonstrate an actual connection between their alleged exposures to asbestos and the defendants named in each asbestos action. These reforms along with defense counsel efforts continuing to challenge the inclusion of improperly named parties, demand early disclosures of factual bases for claims, and push back against the misuse of technology that substitutes assumption for evidence are essential to preserving the legal standards in asbestos litigation.

​

Conclusion

Over-naming in asbestos litigation leads to unjust financial burdens on innocent defendants, contributes to bankruptcies, clogs court dockets, and hinders the ability of plaintiffs with legitimate claims to receive full or timely compensation. If over-naming in asbestos litigation continues to go largely unchecked, plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to name peripheral companies in asbestos lawsuits without sufficient evidence of exposure. Companies will be forced to incur significant legal defense costs, often amounting to thousands of dollars per case, even when they have no liability. AI and advances in technology will enhance this problem. Reforms are essential to protect businesses and ensure that legal resources are allocated efficiently to cases with valid claims.

 

[1] James Lowery III, The Scourge of Over-Naming in Asbestos Litigation: The Costs to Litigants and the Impact on Justice, 32-24 Mealey’s Litig. Rep. Asb. 22 (Jan. 24, 2018).

[2] James S. Kakalik et al., Costs of Asbestos Litigation 12 (1983), at https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3042.html.

[3] Carroll et al., supra, at xxiii (“When increasing asbestos claims rates encouraged scores of defendants to file Chapter 11 petitions . . . the resulting stays in litigation . . . drove plaintiff attorneys to press peripheral non-bankrupt defendants to shoulder a larger share of the value of asbestos claims and to widen their search for other corporations that might be held liable for the costs of asbestos exposure and disease.”). As of today, over 140 companies have filed for asbestos-related bankruptcy court protection.

[4] Stephen J. Carroll et al., RAND Corp., Asbestos Litigation xxv (2005), at https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG162.html.

[5] KCIC, Asbestos Litigation: 2023 Year in Review 14 (2025), at https://www.kcic.com/media/2345/kcic_report_asbestos-annual-report_2023.pdf.

[6] Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973).

[7] Id. at 1086.

[8] Kakalik et al., supra, at 12.

[9] KCIC, Asbestos Litigation: 2024 Year in Review 11 (2025), at https://www.kcic.com/asbestos/.

[10] Id.

[11] Lauren Osterndorf, Looking at Asbestos Litigation Complaint Naming Patterns, KCIC, Feb. 26, 2018, at https://www.kcic.com/trending/feed/looking-at-asbestos-litigation-complaint-naming-patterns/.

[12] Jonathan Terrell, The Most Interesting Panel at Perrin’s Asbestos Litigation Conference, KCIC, Sept. 13, 2019, at https://www.kcic.com/trending/feed/the-most-interesting-panel-at-perrins-asbestos-litigation-conference/.

[13] Id. (quoting Resolute’s Tom Ryan).

[14] Mark Behrens & Christopher Appel, Over-Naming of Asbestos Defendants: A Pervasive Problem in Need of Reform, 36-4 Mealey’s Litig. Rep. Asb. 16 (Mar. 24, 2021).

[15] U.S. Chamber of Com. Inst. for Legal Reform, Over-Naming: A Strategy of Over-Blaming, May 8, 2024, at https://instituteforlegalreform.com/blog/over-naming-a-strategy-of-over-blaming/.

[16] Id.; Lowry, supra; Mark Behrens, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Asbestos Over-Naming, TLR Blog, Mar. 10, 2025, at https://www.tortreform.com/for-the-record/asbestos-over-naming/; Chris Dickerson, Over-naming Continues to be a Problem in W.Va. Asbestos Cases, Study Shows, W. Va. Record (Jan. 18, 2021); Laura Hong & Mary Margaret Gay, Over-naming in Ohio Asbestos Litigation: A Legislative Solution is Needed, Int’l Ass’n of Def. Counsel Newsl., Dec. 2020, at https://www.iadclaw.org/assets/1/17/Toxic_Hazardous_Substances_December_2020_-_Joint_with_CIVILJUSTICERESPONSE.pdf; C. Anne Malik, U.S. Chamber of Com. Inst. for Legal Reform, The Asbestos Over-Naming and Trust Transparency Problem: A Philadelphia Case Study (Mar. 2024), at https://instituteforlegalreform.com/research/ilr-briefly-the-asbestos-over-naming-and-trust-transparency-problem-a-philadelphia-case-study/.

[17] Hank Plauche', DevSet, Revolutionizing Asbestos Litigation Support: Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT with 'Asbestos' Technology (Nov. 9, 2023), at https://devset.ai/blog/revolutionizing-asbestos-litigation-support-harnessing-the-power-of-chatgpt-with-asbestos-technology.

[18] David Thomas, PVC Pipe Maker JM Eagle Sues US Asbestos Law Firm in Racketeering Case, Reuters, May 13, 20224, at https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/pvc-pipe-maker-jm-eagle-sues-us-asbestos-law-firm-racketeering-case-2024-05-13/.

[19] Ala. Code § 6-5-692; Ariz. Code § 12-783; Iowa Code § 686B.3(2), (4); North Dakota Cent. Code § 32-46.2-02; Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.931; Tenn. Code § 29-34-703(c)-(f); Utah Code § 78B-6-2402; W. Va. Code § 55-7G-4(d)-(g).