Mass Tort & MDL Plaintiff Funding in Ohio

Ohio applies a two-year limitations period to a mass tort claim under the Ohio Product Liability Act (Ohio Rev. Code Ch. 2307). Ohio's 10-year statute of repose (ORC §2305.10(C)(1)) includes exceptions directly relevant to mass tort fact patterns — manufacturer fraud regarding product safety, an express written safety warranty longer than 10 years, and carve-outs for asbestos and certain toxic-chemical or medical-device exposure injuries, which accrue on discovery rather than being cut off by the repose period.

Ohio applies modified comparative fault with a 51% bar (ORC §2315.33) to claims under the Ohio Product Liability Act, including a mass tort claim. Ohio also imposes a distinctive procedural requirement on asbestos and silica claims specifically: ORC §2307.91 et seq. requires a plaintiff asserting an asbestos or silica claim to submit a prima facie showing of physical impairment meeting statutory medical criteria before the claim can proceed — a tort-reform-era gatekeeping mechanism aimed specifically at these mass tort categories that has no equivalent for an ordinary Ohio product claim.

Ohio caps non-economic damages at the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, up to $350,000 per plaintiff or $500,000 per occurrence, with higher limits for catastrophic and permanent injuries (ORC §2315.18) — a cap the Ohio Supreme Court upheld in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St. 3d 468 (2007), applicable alongside the Ohio Product Liability Act's own compensatory-damages provisions.

Ohio allows pre-judgment interest specifically where a party failed to make a good-faith effort to settle a claim it should have settled (ORC §1343.03(C)), rather than as an automatic feature of every judgment; a claim resolved through a global settlement matrix instead receives an allocated award under the settlement's own terms.

An Ohio mass tort claim filed in or removable to federal court can be transferred to a federal MDL under 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Ohio does not maintain a single, nationally prominent state-level mass tort coordination program comparable to New Jersey's or Pennsylvania's; Ohio-filed mass tort claims — subject to the asbestos/silica prima facie impairment gatekeeping requirement described above where applicable — more commonly proceed primarily through the federal MDL track or through ordinary Ohio civil procedure for claims not consolidated nationally.

Ohio regulates consumer litigation funding under the Non-recourse civil litigation advance contracts (current); replaced by a new consumer/commercial framework effective October 6, 2026 (H.B. 105), Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.55 (current, through 10/5/2026); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1357.01–1357.10 (effective 10/6/2026). Current law imposes no fixed rate cap — only an APR-style disclosure recalculated every 6 months.

What is Ohio's prima facie impairment requirement for asbestos and silica claims, and why does it matter for funding?

ORC §2307.91 et seq. requires a plaintiff to submit medical evidence meeting specific statutory criteria demonstrating physical impairment before an Ohio asbestos or silica claim can proceed — a gatekeeping step that doesn't exist for an ordinary Ohio product liability claim and is specifically aimed at these two mass tort categories.

For funding purposes, this means an Ohio asbestos or silica claim's viability depends on clearing this threshold medical showing before the underlying causation and damages questions are even reached, so confirming that the required medical documentation exists and meets the statutory standard is an earlier and more decisive diligence step in Ohio than in most other states in this profile.

How does Ohio's damages cap affect the value of a mass tort claim proceeding to individual judgment?

Ohio's non-economic damages cap limits recovery to the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, up to higher statutory ceilings for catastrophic injuries, which directly shapes the expected value of any Ohio mass tort claim that proceeds to an individual verdict rather than a settlement-matrix allocation.

Because most mass tort claims resolve through a global settlement rather than individual trial, this cap is most directly relevant to a bellwether case or an opt-out plaintiff pursuing individual litigation, and it is a factor underwriting has to build into any Ohio mass tort valuation from the outset regardless of how the claim is expected to resolve.