Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won more asbestos disease compensation cases than any other law firm. This has been a tremendously important part of our history.

In the wake of the 1973 court ruling, a firestorm of asbestos lawsuits began to take hold. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of non-impaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to make legal history, however, it was exactly the case in 1973. A retired judge was able discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

asbestos exposure lawsuit settlements lawsuits are rooted in the tort law which stipulates that the seller or manufacturer of any product can be held accountable for any harm caused by the product if it knew or should have known about the danger of its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed asbestos was a danger and could be linked to lung diseases like asbestosis, but also to a rare cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had created more precise tests to confirm the link between illness and asbestos. This resulted in a significant increase in asbestos related lawsuits. The first case to gain significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., which was filed in 1969 and was decided in 1973.

This case was a precedent for many other asbestos cases that would follow. This was the first case where courts held asbestos producers guilty of strict liability. Plaintiffs didn't have to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue multiple manufacturers at once.

Texas was the next state to achieve an important milestone in Asbestos Lawsuit Texas litigation history. In 2005, the Texas legislature approved Senate Bill 15 The law required mesothelioma cases as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, and not conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a major advancement in the law and has helped stop the raging asbestos litigation.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' attorneys and their firms under RICO which is a federal law that was designed to catch those involved in organized criminal activity. Concerted efforts to conceal evidence, mishandle and discard asbestos waste, hide documents, and other similar methods have been exposed by courts, which has led to a number of RICO convictions for both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers that asbestos products posed for decades, asbestos manufacturers put profits over safety. Workers were bribed into keeping quiet about asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers received damages when the truth was exposed.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a national litigation blaze. In the decades that followed, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A majority of these asbestos lawsuits were brought in Texas the state that has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 determined that asbestos defendants can be held accountable if they negligently expose the person to asbestos and that this person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the actions of the company and set the stage for the mass tort system that continues to this day.

The case also set high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their entire damages from just one employer instead of several. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal method and began to implement strategies to limit their exposure.

To reduce the risk of liability, these cynical strategies include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue the mere presence asbestos in the air does not constitute negligence, as exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is still ongoing and there are always new asbestos cases filed every year. In certain instances these cases, the plaintiffs are suing the talcum powder that contains asbestos fibers naturally occurring in the environment. These cases typically involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma due to their use of talcum powder during the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman hoped the testimony would shed some light on Budd and Baron's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits began to increase in volume. The litigation firestorm raged on for years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. The majority of the cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because asbestos companies had their headquarters there.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated employees by paying them small amounts to keep their health concerns secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a while. The truth came out in the late 1970s when lawyers representing the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos companies were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma and other diseases.

By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients they would accept. Kazan Law focused on a smaller group seriously ill workers with medical proof of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They won several important legal rulings including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the requirement to warn not only for specific products however, but also for asbestos Lawsuit Texas industrial premises which contained asbestos. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to regroup in court and set money aside to pay for future asbestos obligations. Sadly, bankruptcy trusts set by these companies continue to compensate asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma settlement-related damage.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was sufficient to show that the victim was on a jobsite at which asbestos was used. This undermined the legal system and made it easier to identify products containing asbestos for lawyers representing plaintiffs. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was a result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies started to fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of the victims. They claimed that the ailments of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, not just one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in many products and each product posed an asbestos exposure risk. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma sufferers right to rights as they were required to list the asbestos-exposure employers of all their employers.

The defendants also began attacking plaintiffs over the issue of compensatory damage. They claimed that the amount awarded asbestos victims was too high and not in proportion to the injuries each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their physical, emotional and financial loss. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry because it meant that each business was accountable for paying large amounts of funds to asbestos victims even if they did not directly cause their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also attempted to limit asbestos lawsuit settlement amount victims' ability to claim compensation by claiming that their employer's insurance coverage was adequate at the time of development of mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that symptoms of mesothelioma typically appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation initiated one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a secret coaching method to assist their clients with identifying specific defendants. In many cases asbestos companies paid them to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trial. A settlement involving asbestos is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company that ends a legal claim of compensation. The settlement can be reached before, during or after the trial and is not required to meet the same requirements as jury verdicts.