In re Asbestos Litigation Cases ( 2021 )

04/09/2021
Case Number: AC 17-0694
IN THE ASBESTOS CLAIMS COURT OF THE STALE OF MONTANA
Cause No. AC 17-0694
IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION, THIS DOCUNIENT RELATES TO:
Consolidated
Cases.
ORDER APPROVING ODEGAARD KOVACICH SNIPES, P.C.,
ATTORNEY FEES
This matter is before the Court on OKS Plaintiffs' (OKS Libby Mine
Claimants) rnotion for approval of attorney fees. Hearing was held before this
Court on April 6, 2021, on the joint motion for approval of settlement. On the basis
of the motion for Court approval of attorney fees, and hearing on the joint motion
for approval of settlement, good cause appearing, and the Court having fully
considered the same, now enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Beginning in the late 1960s and increasingly into the 1990s, Zonolite
Mining Company/W.R. Grace (collectively "Grace") employees, former
employees, and farnily members made claims against Grace for asbestos-related
diseases. Many claims settled, various cases were tried to verdict, and certain cases
involved appeals to the Montana Supreme Court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. The OKS Libby Mine Claimants included in this settlement allege that
the State of Montana is liable in darnages for the asbestos-related diseases suffered.
Claimants filed claims against the State seeking to establish the legal liability of
the State of Montana and to recover monetary damages resulting from that liability.
2. The OKS Libby Mine Clairnants have extensively litigated their
claims, as have those similarly situated before them. Over the years of litigation
between the parties, there has been the exchange of comprehensive written
discovery, complex and detailed expert reports, taking of nurnerous depositions,
and briefing of cornplex motions, to which tasks the OKS Libby Claimants'
counsel have dedicated thousands of hours over a nurnber of years.
3. Negotiations led to a formal mediation conference. At the conclusion
of the mediation conference, OKS Libby Claimants and the State entered into a
tentative settlement agreernent. Following execution of the agreement, the parties,
through their counsel, prepared and executed the requisite releases, negotiated
Medicaid and Medicare issues, and presented the motion to approve the settlernent
to this Court.
4. Under the approved joint motion for approval of settlement, the OKS
Libby Mine Claimants' cases and claims against the State of Montana are settled by
ORDER APPROVING ODEGAARD KOVACICH SNIPES, P.C., ATTORNEY FEES - 2
payrnent of $754,000, with a contingent $263,900 dependent on the result of
pending litigation between the State and its insurance company.
5. The Court's Order Approving Settlement and Dismissal with
Prejudice approved the settlement resolves and dismisses the OKS Libby Mine
Clairnants' cases and claims against the State of Montana but expressly reserves
their claims against all other responsible parties. Copies of the releases from
Plaintiffs for claims against the State of Montana have been provided to the Court.
6. Counsels' representation of the OKS Libby Mine Clairnants is subject
to a standard 331 /3% contingent fee contract. Representation of the Libby asbestos
cases, including the clairns of the OKS Libby Mine Claimants, has involved more
than a decade of litigation on multiple fronts, before various state, federal, and
adrninistrative tribunals, and appeals perfected in both state and federal courts of
appeal. As recognized by the parties, the cases and claims against the State of
Montana involve nurnerous disputed factual questions and unresolved legal issues
of extreme complexity.
7. The settlement reached with the State of Montana has been fully
approved by each OKS Libby Mine Clairnant, inclusive of the contingent attorney
fee that results by operation of the settlement.
8. There has been no objection to the entry of an order approving OKS
Plaintiffs' Motion for Court Approval of Attorney Fees.
ORDER APPROVING ODEGAARD KOVACICH SNIPES, P.C., AfPURNEY FEES - 3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Where the subject of a contingent attorney fee contract does not
offend public policy, it will be enforced according to its terms. Frank L. Pirtz
Const. v. Hardin Town Pump, Inc., 214 Mont. 131, 139, 692 P.2d 460, 464-65
(1984), citing Gross v. Holzworth, 151 Mont. 179, 440 P.2d 765 (1968); Wight v.
Hughes Livestock Co.,(Mont. 1983), 664 P.2d 303, 40 St.Rep. 696.
2. Section 2-9-314(2), MCA, provides in relevant part that when
reviewing attorney fees, the Court should consider the time the attorney was
required to spend on the case, the cornplexity of the case, and any other relevant
matter the Court may consider appropriate. In Stimac v. State, 248 Mont. 412, 417,
812 P.2d 1246, 1249 (1991), the Montana Supreme Court held that the following
factors should be considered by a District Court when assessing the reasonableness
of an attorney fee: (1) the novelty and difficulty of the legal and factual issues
involved;(2) the tirne and labor required to perform the legal service properly;(3)
the character and irnportance of the litigation; (4) the result secured by the
attorney; (5) the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney; (6) the fees
customarily charged for similar legal services at the time and place where the
services were rendered; (7) the ability of the client to pay for the legal services
rendered; and (8) the risk of no recovery. Given the complexity of the case, the
ORDER APPROVING ODEGAARD KOVACICH SNIPES, P.C., AlfORNEY FEES - 4
duration of this litigation, the nurnerous disputed factual questions and unresolved
legal issues, the contracts of employment between the OKS Libby Mine Claimants
and their counsel are fair and reasonable.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that OKS Plaintiffs' Motion for Court Approval
of Attorney Fees is GRANTED.
DATED this anil- day of , 2021.
y Eddy
Asbestos Claims Court Judge
ORDER APPROVING ODEGAARD KOVACICH SNIPES, P.C., AlfORNEY FEES - 5