Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.

The law requires manufacturers of dangerous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling the dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can provide victims with compensation for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensatory damages can include a amount of money for suffering and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.

Despite warnings throughout the years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 metric tons. This enormous consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for low-cost and durable construction materials to accommodate the growing population. The demand for cheap mass-produced products made from asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of manufacturing and mining industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, lawsuits and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in many frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).

In a Neoclassical building made of limestone on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and deplete bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.

For instance, he discovered that in one instance, an attorney claimed that a jury his client was exposed to Garlock's products but the evidence showed a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information, and even made up evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.

Since the time other judges have also noted some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits, lawsuits but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of the amount asbestos victims owe businesses.

The Second Case

Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments because of the negligence of companies who produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. Victims often receive a substantial amount of compensation.

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after a period of 33 years working as an insulation worker. The court ruled that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were responsible for his injuries because they did not warn him about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling could open the possibility of future asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in settlements or awards for victims.

While asbestos litigation was on the rise, many of the companies involved in the cases were looking for ways to limit their liability. They did this by paying suspicious "experts" to conduct research and publish documents that would allow them to argue their case in court. They also employed their resources to to influence public perceptions of the truth about the asbestos's health hazards.

One of the most troubling developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy may be helpful in certain circumstances, it could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. Additionally the courts have a long tradition of refusing class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are attempting to get judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also would like to limit the types of damages that jurors can award. This is a crucial issue as it will impact the amount of money a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The mesothelioma-related lawsuits began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease develops following exposure to asbestos, a mineral many companies used to use in various construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.

The mesothelioma latency time is long, which means that people don't usually develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is a hazardous material and companies that make use of it often conceal their use.

A number of asbestos companies declared bankruptcy because of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reorganize under court supervision and set money 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.

This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings that will limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For example, some defendants have tried to claim that their products were not made of asbestos-containing material but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos materials later purchased by the defendants. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.

A string of large-scale asbestos trials, consolidated into the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that were held in New York in the 1980s and the 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these cases and other major asbestos personal injury lawsuit litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, helped reduce the number of asbestos lawsuit after death lawsuits, and also provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.

Another key advancement in asbestos litigation was made with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms to the law required the evidence presented in a lawsuit involving asbestos be based on peer-reviewed scientific research rather than based on speculation and supposition from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively put out the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began attacking their adversaries attorneys who represent them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic that is designed to distract attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that followed.

This method has proven to be extremely efficient. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you aren't sure that you have mesothelioma experienced firm can find evidence and make a convincing claim.

In the early days asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. First, there were those exposed in the workplace who sued businesses that mined and produced asbestos-related products. A second group of litigants comprised those who were exposed at the home or in public buildings seeking compensation from property owners and employers. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases suing companies that sell asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects that used asbestos, and many other parties.

One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos firms were specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and provoking them in large quantities. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to target specific defendants and to file cases without regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and instituted legislative remedies that helped stop the litigation rumbling.

Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including the cost of medical treatment. Contact a reputable law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure that you receive the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can review your personal circumstances and determine if you're in a mesothelioma claim that is viable and help you pursue justice against the asbestos companies that harmed you.