Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and won more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been an important part of our past.

A 1973 court ruling set off a firestorm in asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a neoclassical limestone building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973, a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District became the location of a landmark legal landmark. A retired judge was able discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos-related lawsuits have their origins in the law of tort which states that a manufacturer or seller of any product may be held responsible for any injury caused by the product if it knew or should have known the danger of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved that asbestos was dangerous and linked not only to lung disease like asbestosis but also to a rare cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more accurate tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos and illness. This led to an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case to win significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. The case was filed in 1969 and decided in 1973.

This case set a precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. It was the first time that the courts ruled that asbestos producers could be found guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the company, and they could also sue multiple manufacturers simultaneously.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. The law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, and not speculation or suppositions made by hired-gun experts. This was a significant change in the law that helped to stop the furore of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO. It is a federal statute designed to deter those involved in organized crime. Concerted efforts to conceal evidence, conceal and dispose of asbestos waste, hide documents, and other similar methods have been exposed by the courts, resulting in a number of RICO convictions for both defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite knowing the dangers asbestos products posed for decades, asbestos manufacturers put profits over safety. They even paid workers to hide their exposure to asbestos lawsuit after death-related illnesses like mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged in the end, tens of thousands victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a nation-wide litigation firestorm. In the next three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed. A large portion of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held liable when they negligently expose a person to asbestos and that this person develops an asbestos-related disease. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the actions of the company and paved the way for the mass tort system which continues today.

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 realized the benefits of this legal method and began using strategies to reduce their exposure.

To reduce the risk of liability, these cynical strategies include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence asbestos lawsuit settlement amount in the air didn't constitute negligence, as exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. The claims often involve talcum, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder during the 1970s and 1980s.

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

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation inferno raged for a number of years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws, and the asbestos companies are headquartered there.

The defendants fought back against plaintiffs claims. They employed scientists to study and asbestos lawsuit history publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulated their workers by offering them small sums to keep their health problems secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a time. However, the truth was revealed in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the brutal conduct of asbestos executives of the company. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma and other diseases.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they took on. Kazan Law focused on a smaller number of seriously ill workers who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought against asbestos companies in their attempts to limit liability. They were successful in a variety of important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn was applicable not just to specific products, but also to industrial premises in which asbestos was present. It was later affirmed in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

In the early 1980s, many of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This gave them the chance to reorganize their businesses through court proceedings and set funds aside for future asbestos liabilities. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts set by these companies continue to have to pay for asbestos-related damages.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure it was enough to show that the victim worked at a site where asbestos was utilized. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to determine their clients' asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for Baron & Budd’s "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

After the victory of Clarence Borel more asbestos victims won their cases. But asbestos companies started to fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy involved attacking evidence from victims. They claimed that the ailments of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, and not just one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in numerous products and each had its own asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma patients as it required them identify all asbestos-exposed employers.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They argued that the amount awarded to asbestos victims was unreasonable and not proportional to the injuries suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos sufferers were seeking compensation for their emotional, physical and financial loss. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance sector, as each company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos patients regardless of whether they did not cause their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurers also tried to limit the ability asbestos victims to receive compensation by arguing that they weren't entitled to any damages that were beyond the amount of their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually appear 10 years after exposure.

One of the most devastating assaults on asbestos victims was from lawyers who were specialized in this kind of litigation. These attorneys gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also created a process for secretly instructing their clients to target particular defendants. They were often paid by asbestos companies they targeted.

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