Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been a hugely important part of our history.

A 1973 court decision sparked an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. The cases were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to make legal history, but that's exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are founded on tort law, which stipulates that a company could be held accountable for any injury caused by a product, if they were aware or ought to have known about the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research showed asbestos was harmful and could cause lung diseases like asbestosis lawsuit settlements, but also a rare type of cancer called mesothelioma. asbestos lawsuit attorneys producers denied these risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more precise tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos lawsuit settlement amount and health. This resulted in an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to gain significant legal recognition. It was filed in 1969 and decided in 1973.

This case set the stage for the many asbestos cases to follow. This was the first instance that the courts ruled asbestos manufacturers guilty under strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue several manufacturers simultaneously.

The next significant milestone in asbestos lawsuit history was in the state of Texas. In 2005, the Texas legislature approved Senate Bill 15 This law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of supposition and conjecture from hired gun experts. This was a major advancement in the law and has helped reduce the rumblings of asbestos litigation.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs lawyers and their firms under RICO. This is a federal statute designed to catch those who are involved in organized criminal activities. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, hide documents and other similar tactics. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants and claimants.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers that asbestos products posed for decades, companies kept putting profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to keep quiet about asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers were compensated when the truth was finally exposed.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a national litigation firestorm. In the three decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had 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 an individual to asbestos and the person develops an asbestos-related disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and towards the actions of the company. It paved the way for mass torts, which are still in force to this day.

The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to claim their entire damages from just one employer, instead of several. Insurance companies recognized the benefits of a legal method to limit asbestos exposure and began using strategies to limit the exposure.

In order to reduce liability, these cynical tactics include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not a cause for negligence because exposure can occur from various sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and there are always new asbestos cancer lawsuit mesothelioma settlement cases being filed each year. In some cases these cases, they involve the use of talcum powder, which is a source of naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma due to their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

In late 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested a judge to release the transcript of Budd's deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo. Biederman was hoping that the testimony would shed some light on Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence strategy. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the wake of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation firestorm raged on for many years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. 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 back against the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated workers by paying them small amounts to keep their health issues quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a while. The truth was exposed in the late 1970s when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Thousands of asbestos workers were in a position to sue asbestos producers for asbestos lawsuit history mesothelioma and related conditions.

By the mid-1980s asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they accepted. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller group of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against 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 obligation to warn not only for specific products, but also for industrial buildings that contained raw asbestos. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to organize in court and set money aside to cover future asbestos obligations. However, the bankruptcy trusts created by these companies continue paying out asbestos-related damages today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure, it was sufficient to prove that the victim worked at a place where asbestos was utilized. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to identify their clients with asbestos-containing products. Baron & Budd's "coaching memo" was the result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

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

One strategy was to attack the victims' evidence. They claimed that the ailments of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures from a variety of employers, and not only one exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in many products and each product posed the risk of exposure to asbestos in its own way. This was a serious attack on mesothelioma victims' rights because it required them to identify all asbestos-exposured employers.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded asbestos victims was excessive and not in proportion to the injuries each victim suffered. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their emotional, financial and physical losses. This was a significant challenge to the insurance industry as it meant that each company was accountable for paying large sums of money to asbestos victims, even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurers also tried to limit the ability asbestos victims to receive compensation by claiming that they weren't entitled to any damages beyond the level of the liability insurance coverage of their employer at the time they developed their mesothelioma. Medical evidence shows that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that mesothelioma symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered groups plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers hoping to overwhelm court system. They also created a process for secretly instructing their clients to target specific defendants, and they were often paid to do so by asbestos companies they targeted.

Although some cases were brought to trial, many victims settled with asbestos companies before or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between a victim and the asbestos company to stop an legal claim for compensation. It can be reached before, during or after a trial and is not subject to the same rules as a jury verdict.