Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are handled by a complex process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in consolidated asbestos trials in New York, which resolve several claims at once.

Manufacturers of hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies who mine, mill or manufacture asbestos or asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts-containing items.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensation damages for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of cash amount for pain and discomfort and lost earnings, medical costs as well as property damage. Depending on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to penalize companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos in the world surpassed 109,000 metric tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need average settlement for asbestos exposure sturdy and inexpensive construction materials in order to keep pace with population growth. The growing demand for cheap asbestos products, which were mass-produced, contributed to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industry.

In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced a plethora of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy and Asbestos Lawsuit History others settled lawsuits with large sums of cash. But lawsuits and investigations found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The litigation that followed resulted in convictions for a number of individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 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 swindle clients and deplete trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.

Hodges discovered, for instance, that in one case a lawyer claimed to a jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence indicated a much greater range of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information and even created fake evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.

Since then other judges have also noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits, but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will lead to more precise estimates of the amount companies owe asbestos victims.

The Second Case

Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses due to the negligence of businesses that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not uncommon for victims to receive substantial compensation for their injuries.

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court held largest asbestos settlement-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries because they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in awards or verdicts for victims.

Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation grew. They did this by hiring shady "experts" to conduct research and publish papers that would help them present their arguments in the courtroom. They also used their resources to try to skew public perception of the truth about the asbestos's health hazards.

Class action lawsuits are among of the most alarming trends when it comes to asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit victims and their families to sue multiple defendants at once rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. While this approach can be beneficial in certain cases, it can cause a lot of confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. In addition, the courts have a long tradition of refusing class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to seek legal rulings that will help them limit the extent of their liability. They are attempting to get judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They also would like to limit the types of damages that a juror may award. This is an important issue because it will affect the amount of money victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease develops after exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies once used in a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits brought by those suffering from mesothelioma focused on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

The latency period for mesothelioma is long, which means that patients don't typically exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related diseases. In addition, the companies that used asbestos frequently concealed their use of the material because they knew that it was dangerous.

A few asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to regroup under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients as well as other asbestos-related diseases.

This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings that could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, a few defendants have tried to argue that their products weren't made with asbestos-containing materials but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos materials later purchased by defendants. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good example of this argument.

A series of large asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn navy asbestos settlement Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, took place in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.

Another key development in asbestos litigation came with the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in a lawsuit involving asbestos be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of relying on speculation and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, and the passage of other reforms similar to them, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began to attack their adversaries - lawyers who represent them. The aim of this tactic is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This method has proven to be extremely effective. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma must seek out a reputable firm as soon as is possible. Even if you do not think you have mesothelioma-related cancer, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can locate evidence of exposure and help build a solid case.

In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad variety of legal claims filed by various litigants. Workers who were exposed at work filed lawsuits against firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. Then, those exposed in private or public structures sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related illnesses, sue distributors of asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks who financed projects using asbestos and numerous other parties.

Texas was the scene of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and bringing them to trial in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It became famous for its secret method of coaching clients to focus on particular defendants and filing cases without regard to accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by the courts, and legislative remedies were put in place that slowed the litigation raging.

Asbestos victims deserve an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, including medical expenses. To ensure you receive the amount of compensation you are entitled, you should seek out a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.