Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.

The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies who mill, mine, or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a wide range of injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages can include a amount of money for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings throughout the years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and robust construction materials to support the increasing population. The demand for low-cost manufactured products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.

By the year 1980, asbestos companies were facing thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies failed and others settled lawsuits for large amounts of money. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and asbestos attorney cancer lawyer mesothelioma settlement Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

In a limestone building that was built in the Neoclassical style located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme used by lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos Attorney cancer lawyer mesothelioma settlement litigation.

For instance, he found that in one instance, the lawyer claimed to a jury his client had only been exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence suggested the possibility of a wider range of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys created false claims, concealed information, and even faked evidence to get asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.

Since since then, other judges have noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits however not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimates of how much asbestos victims owe companies.

The Second Case

The negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos products has resulted in the development of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive significant compensation for their injuries.

The first asbestos-related lawsuit to receive a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from asbestosis and mesothelioma after working as an insulation worker for 33 years. The court held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries as they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.

As asbestos litigation grew and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the litigation were trying to find ways to minimize their liability. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write papers that would justify their claims in court. These companies also used their resources to alter the public's perception of the truth regarding asbestos law lawyer mesothelioma settlement's health hazards.

One of the most disturbing developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this approach can be beneficial in certain situations, it can cause a lot of confusion and waste of time for asbestos victims and their families. Additionally, the courts have a long tradition of denying class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying get judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held responsible. They also are trying to limit the types of damages juries are able to award. This is a significant issue because it will affect the amount of money the victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The mesothelioma-related lawsuits began to increase in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease develops following exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies used to use in various construction materials. Workers with mesothelioma have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them to asbestos.

Mesothelioma has long periods of latency, meaning people do not typically show signs of the disease until years after being exposed to the material. Mesothelioma can be more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related diseases due to its long period of latency. In addition, the companies who used asbestos often did not disclose their use of asbestos because they knew it was dangerous.

The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to organize themselves in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put money aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers and other asbestos-related illnesses.

This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings which would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured, but were used together with asbestos material which was later purchased. This argument is well-executed in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

A number of massive consolidated asbestos cancer lawyer mesothelioma settlement trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials which occurred in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigations that were major in New York. These trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings for companies involved in the litigation.

Another important development in asbestos litigation came with the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, and the passage 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 victims, they began to attack their adversaries attorneys who represent them. The purpose of this tactic is to make the plaintiffs look guilty. This tactic is that is designed to distract focus from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that subsequently developed.

This strategy has proven be very efficient. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult a reputable law firm as quickly as possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest you're suffering from mesothelioma experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.

In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by different litigants. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. Then, those exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses sued asbestos-containing material distributors and manufacturers of protective equipment as well as banks that financed asbestos-related projects, and many other parties.

Texas was the scene of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies were experts in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and bringing them to trial in large quantities. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of instructing its clients to select specific defendants and filing cases in bulk, with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies to quell the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including for medical expenses. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, seek out a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as soon as you can. A lawyer can analyze the facts of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.