In the 1998 case of Esteban Ortiz, et al. v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a class action lawsuit brought by claimants who had been exposed to asbestos products manufactured by Fibreboard Corp and other companies but were not yet ill. The plaintiffs sought compensation for medical monitoring costs and damages for emotional distress caused by their fear of developing an asbestos-related disease in the future. However, the court ruled that under Texas law (which applied in this case), recovery for such claims was not allowed unless physical injury or disease was already present - mere exposure to a harmful substance without more did not constitute an actionable injury. Therefore, it held that these "exposure-only" plaintiffs could not proceed as a class because they lacked commonality; each individual's claim depended on personal circumstances like their level of exposure and health status which would need separate adjudication.

In the dissenting opinion for Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corporation, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the class action settlement was not fair or reasonable to all members of the class. He criticized the majority's decision as a departure from established principles of due process and fairness in class action litigation. Stevens contended that many potential claimants were unaware of their rights and would be unfairly bound by a settlement they did not understand or agree to. Furthermore, he questioned whether it was appropriate for future claims to be decided by current plaintiffs who may have different interests than those who will make claims in the future. Finally, he expressed concern about judicial overreach and warned against courts becoming too involved in managing complex settlements at the expense of individual litigant’s rights.