Defense Warns New Rule Could Revive Stale Claims; Justices Probe Retroactivity

Defense counsel told the Court that applying a new prejudice requirement retroactively would risk reopening long‑expired claims and impose liabilities that insurers did not consider when setting premiums. "Reviving long‑expired claims would expose insurers to unpriced liabilities that that they did not consider in setting their rates and premiums," counsel argued.

Justices repeatedly asked whether the Court should make any change purely prospective, purely retroactive, or adopt a modified prospective rule that would allow the current plaintiff limited relief without broadly disturbing settled claims. Plaintiff counsel responded that many cases of concern arise within recent years and that practical evidentiary limits — missing witnesses, lost inspection opportunities — would limit successful revival of very old claims.

The bench also questioned how the Beavers factors for retroactivity should weigh here: whether a new rule would establish a new principle of law, disrupt settled expectations, or produce inequitable results. Counsel disagreed on the balance; the Court took the matter under advisement and submitted the case.