|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
As South Carolina’s high court continues to weigh the future of a controversial asbestos receivership docket – one explored in detail in FITSNews’ Toxic Justice series – the Palmetto State’s top prosecutor has joined a new front in a separate but closely related legal battle.
In a newly filed friend-of-the-court brief (.pdf) in Delaware, S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson joined attorneys general from ten other states in urging the Delaware supreme court court to block asbestos bankruptcy trusts from implementing document retention policies that would eliminate historical claims data, payment records and supporting materials tied to prior asbestos compensation claims.
According to the filing, these records remain highly relevant not only to ongoing asbestos litigation but to future cases in which defendants seek to test causation, verify prior exposure claims and determine whether plaintiffs have already received compensation from trust systems created after major asbestos manufacturers entered bankruptcy.
“Transparency and fairness are critical in litigation,” Wilson said in a statement released last Friday. “By allowing these documents to be destroyed, we are opening the door to corrupting the legal process.”
The filing places South Carolina squarely inside a national dispute over how much historical evidence must remain available in asbestos litigation — a fight that mirrors many of the same structural questions now unfolding in South Carolina’s own courts.
***
TOXIC JUSTICE AND THE FIGHT OVER WHO CONTROLS THE RECORD
For months, FITSNews’ Toxic Justice series has examined how asbestos litigation in South Carolina increasingly turns not only on exposure evidence, but on who controls access to entities, assets and records linked to decades-old industrial liability.
That issue now sits at the center of two parallel legal tracks.
In South Carolina, the state supreme court recently heard oral arguments in a closely watched receivership appeal involving foreign asbestos-linked entities and disputed jurisdiction over overseas corporate assets. That case has major implications for whether South Carolina courts can continue using receivership structures to pull historically remote defendants into active litigation streams.
In Delaware, the Wilson-led brief focuses on a different but equally consequential question: whether bankruptcy trusts that process asbestos claims can permanently destroy data that defendants say is often essential to understanding what claimants previously alleged elsewhere.
The brief argued that if trust records disappear, courts and litigants could lose access to information frequently used to compare litigation claims against earlier trust submissions — including descriptions of product exposure, work histories and prior compensation payments.
Those materials have become increasingly important in asbestos litigation because many plaintiffs pursue compensation through multiple legal channels over time.
***
WHY TRUST DATA MATTERS
The Delaware case arises from claims that several asbestos trusts planned to systematically eliminate large portions of historical claims data under revised retention policies.
Wilson and the other attorneys general argued that doing so would undermine both discovery rights and state transparency laws designed to ensure defendants can test whether trust claims were filed, when they were filed and what factual allegations were made in them.
Their brief leans heavily on the landmark Garlock bankruptcy ruling, in which a federal court found that delayed trust disclosures and withheld exposure evidence distorted liability outcomes in asbestos cases.
That opinion has become one of the most cited authorities in modern asbestos defense litigation because it documented repeated instances in which trust filings surfaced only after defendants had already settled tort claims.
Wilson’s filing warned that destroying trust data would remove exactly the kind of information courts increasingly require parties to disclose.
“This case is ultimately about fairness and truth-seeking,” the brief stated.
***
RELATED | TOXIC JUSTICE
***
WHY THIS MATTERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA NOW
The filing arrived as South Carolina remains under national scrutiny for its asbestos litigation climate.
The recent supreme court hearing revolved around whether a docket led by former S.C. chief justice Jean Toal may continue overseeing receiverships involving foreign-linked asbestos entities — proceedings that drew unusual attention because they unfolded against the backdrop of an open Supreme Court seat, ongoing judicial screening battles and overlapping political relationships tied to asbestos litigation.
That broader environment has already fueled debate over whether South Carolina remains what critics call a “judicial hellhole” for complex civil litigation.
Wilson’s new filing does not directly address South Carolina’s receivership cases, but it reinforces a broader legal principle now surfacing across jurisdictions: that litigation systems depend heavily on preserving evidence, especially where liability stretches across decades, jurisdictions and bankrupt corporate structures.
In practical terms, the Delaware ruling could determine whether future asbestos defendants nationwide retain access to one of the few historical records capable of tracing how claims evolved across trust and tort systems.
And because South Carolina remains deeply engaged in active asbestos litigation, any national shift in trust transparency could eventually shape arguments inside the Palmetto State as well.
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The Delaware supreme court is now being asked to decide whether trust administrators may move forward with record-destruction policies challenged by companies that remain frequent asbestos defendants.
A ruling affirming the lower court would preserve the data while broader litigation continues.
A reversal could allow significant categories of trust claim material to disappear permanently.
For South Carolina, the implications may extend well beyond Delaware.
As Toxic Justice has repeatedly shown, modern asbestos litigation is no longer simply about exposure from decades ago. Increasingly, it is about who controls the evidence that determines what can still be proven now.
***
THE BRIEF
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
