Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complicated manner. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a variety of claims all at one time.

The law requires companies that produce hazardous products to warn consumers of the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.

The First Case

One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damage can include a cash amount to ease pain and discomfort and lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damages. Based on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite numerous warnings numerous manufacturers continued to employ asbestos in a range of products across the United States. By 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the requirement for durable and affordable building materials to accommodate population growth. Increasing demand for inexpensive asbestos products, which were mass-produced, helped to fuel the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industry.

In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt and others settled lawsuits for large sums of money. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of many individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).

In a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.

For instance, he found that in one case the lawyer claimed to the jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock's products but the evidence suggested an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also found that lawyers used false assertions, concealed information and even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.

Other judges have since noted dubious legal maneuvering in asbestos cases, but not as extensive as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that ongoing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe companies.

The Second Case

The negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos products has led to the development mesothelioma among thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not uncommon for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their loss.

The first asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis lawsuit settlements after working as an insulator for 33 years. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation producers responsible for his injuries as they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.

Many companies were trying to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation increased. They did this by paying suspicious "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would help them make their arguments in the courtroom. They also employed their resources to to influence public perceptions of the real asbestos's health hazards.

One of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to take on multiple defendants at one time instead of filing individual lawsuits against every company. This tactic, while it can be beneficial in certain cases, can create confusion and take away time from asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.

Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to search for asbestos lawsuits legal rulings that help them limit the scope of their liabilities. They are attempting to get judges to agree that only the producers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages a judge may award. This is a crucial issue because it will affect the amount an asbestos victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies used to make a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

Mesothelioma sufferers have a long latency period that means that people don't usually show symptoms of the illness until decades after being exposed to the material. Mesothelioma is more difficult to prove than other veterans asbestos lawsuits-related illnesses because of its lengthy period of latency. Asbestos is a hazardous material and businesses that use it often conceal their use.

Many asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of a court and put funds aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers and other asbestos-related diseases.

But this also led to an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that could restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, a few defendants have tried to argue that their products were not made of asbestos-containing material but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were subsequently purchased by the defendants. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

A number of massive asbestos trials, consolidated into the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that took place in New York in the 1980s and the 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these cases as well as other major asbestos personal injury lawsuit litigation in New York. These trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings for companies involved in litigation.

In 2005, the passing of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was another important step in the asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos settlements lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or supposition from an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively squelched the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against lawsuits filed on behalf victims, they began to attack their opponents lawyers representing them. The aim of this tactic is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This tactic is that is designed to distract attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma which followed.

This strategy has been very efficient, and that is why people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult with an experienced firm as soon as possible. Even if it isn't clear that you believe you are a mesothelioma case, an experienced firm with the right resources can provide evidence of exposure and create a convincing case.

In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by various litigants. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace who sued businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos products. In the second, those exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases, sued suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects using asbestos, and many other parties.

One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation was in Texas. Asbestos firms in the state were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and bringing cases to court in huge numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of instructing its clients to target particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk, with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies that helped stop the litigation rumbling.

Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, which includes the cost of medical treatment. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to make sure you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can review the facts of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma claim and help you pursue justice.