Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firm. This is a significant part of our history.

A 1973 court decision sparked a firestorm in asbestos lawsuits. The cases were filed by thousands of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It seems an unlikely place to create legal history however, that's exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this time that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retiring and began to unravel a long-running scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendant companies and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law, which stipulates that a company can be held responsible for any injury caused by a product, if they were aware or ought to have known about the dangers associated with its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed that asbestos was dangerous and Asbestos Lawsuit History was linked to not just lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had created more precise tests to confirm the link between asbestos-related illnesses and asbestos. This resulted in an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case that gained significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. It was filed in 1969 and ruled in 1973.

This case set a precedent for many other asbestos cases to follow. It was the first time that the courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove the companies been negligent as it allowed victims to sue multiple manufacturers at one time.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature of Texas approved Senate Bill 15 This law required mesothelioma cases as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, rather than speculation or supposition made by hired gun experts. This was a major change in the law and has helped stop the raging asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs lawyers and their firms under RICO. It is a federal law designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar strategies. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants as well as plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos manufacturers knowing the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits over safety. They even used bribes to get workers to conceal the dangers of asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

In 1973, a single case ignited a firestorm of litigation across the nation. In the next three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A majority of these asbestos lawsuits were brought in Texas which has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

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

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims which allowed them to recover full damages from just one of their employers instead of several. Insurance companies quickly realized the benefits of this legal strategy and began using strategies to reduce their exposure.

These cynical strategies included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to reduce their liability. They also began to argue the mere presence asbestos in the air didn't constitute negligence, since exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and there are always new asbestos cases filed every year. In certain instances these cases, the plaintiffs are suing the use of talcum powder, which is a source of asbestos fibers that naturally occur. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma following using talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer asked a court to release Budd's transcript of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in the final months of 2016. Biederman hoped that the testimony would shed light on Baron and Budd's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy However, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the aftermath of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation war raged for years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws and asbestos companies have located there.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs' claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also manipulated workers by offering them small sums to keep their health problems at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a time. But the truth came out in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Thousands of workers were in a position to sue asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts producers for mesothelioma, and related conditions.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began 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 back against asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They were successful in a variety of important legal rulings including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the obligation to warn not just for specific products, but also for industrial premises that contained raw asbestos. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, many of the largest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to organize through the courts and set aside funds aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. However the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies are still paying out asbestos-related claims today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was enough to prove that the victim worked on a site where asbestos was utilized. This affected the legal system and Asbestos Lawsuit History made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for lawyers representing plaintiffs. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was a result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory paved the way for the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies started to fight to defend their profits. They started attacking victims on different fronts.

One strategy was to denigrate the evidence of the victims. They claimed that the victims suffered from illnesses that were the result of multiple exposures to asbestos by multiple employers, not a single exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in a variety of products and each had the risk of exposure to asbestos in its own way. This was a serious attack on the rights of mesothelioma sufferers, since it required them to identify the asbestos-exposed employers of their.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded asbestos victims was too high and insufficient to the injuries each victim suffered. asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, physical and financial losses. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry because it meant that each business was accountable for paying large sums of funds to asbestos victims even if they did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurance companies also tried to limit asbestos victims' ability to be compensated, arguing that their employer's insurance coverage was sufficient at the time of the mesothelioma's onset. This was despite the fact that medical evidence proved that there is no safe amount of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms usually occur 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type litigation have launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a secret coaching system to assist their clients with identifying specific defendants. Often asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

Although some cases were brought to trial, a lot of victims were able to settle with asbestos companies before or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos cancer lawsuit mesothelioma settlement is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company which ends a legal claim of compensation. The settlement may be reached prior to, during or after the trial and does not have to meet the same requirements as jury verdicts.