Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and received more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firms. This has been an important part of our history.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision, a firestorm of asbestos lawsuits was sparked. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit started in a neoclassical house located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973 the neoclassical limestone structure on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District was the location of a landmark legal landmark. It was at this time that a judge returned to the bench after his retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to extort defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits have their roots in the tort law, which states that a seller or manufacturer of any product may be held liable for any injury caused by the product if the company knew or should have been aware of the danger of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated that asbestos was dangerous and linked not only to lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued sell their products.

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

This case set the tone for a lot of other asbestos cases that will follow. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos producers could be found guilty under the legal theory of strict liability. Plaintiffs didn't have to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could also sue multiple manufacturers simultaneously.

The next significant milestone in asbestos lawsuit history was in the state of Texas. In 2005 the legislature 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 asbestos-Related lawsuit supposition made by hired gun experts. This was a major advance in the law that helped to reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their firms under RICO which is a federal law designed to catch those who are involved in organized crime. Concerted efforts to conceal evidence, conceal and dispose of asbestos lawsuit payouts waste, hide documents, and other similar strategies have been exposed by courts, which has led to numerous RICO convictions for both defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite knowing the dangers asbestos products could pose for decades, manufacturers kept putting profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to remain quiet about asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a national litigation firestorm. In the following three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits asbestos have been filed. A majority of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas which has favorable laws for Asbestos-Related Lawsuit asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held accountable for damages if they negligently exposed someone to asbestos and those persons developed an asbestos-related disease. The case moved asbestos litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the actions of the company. It opened the way for mass torts, which are still in force today.

The case also set a very high bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to claim all damages from only one of their employers, rather than a number of. Insurers realized the potential of a legal strategy to limit exposure to asbestos and began employing strategies to limit the exposure.

These cynical tactics included altering the definition of "exposure" in order to limit their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air wasn't negligent because exposure can occur from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. These claims sometimes involve the talcum powder, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma following using talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

In the last quarter of 2016, a reporter from the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested that a judge unseal the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman hoped the testimony would shed some light on Budd and Baron's involvement in the mesothelioma defence plan. However, the trial court denied her request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began to grow. The litigation firestorm raged on for many years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of the cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because asbestos companies were headquartered there.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and then publish papers that supported their defenses. They also manipulated workers by paying them small amounts to keep their health issues at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a while. The truth was revealed in the late 1970s when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless behavior of asbestos company executives. Asbestos producers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they accepted. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They won a number important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn applied not just to specific products but also to industrial facilities in which asbestos was present. It was later affirmed in the case of Jeromson in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This gave them the opportunity to reorganize themselves through court proceedings and set funds aside for the future asbestos-related lawsuit obligations. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts set up by these companies still pay 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 prove that the victim worked at a site where asbestos was used. This made it more difficult for the legal system to determine exposure and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to identify their clients' asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for Baron & Budd’s "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

After the victory of Clarence Borel more asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma victims won their lawsuits. But asbestos companies began fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of victims. They claimed that victims had illnesses caused by multiple exposures to asbestos from multiple employers, not a single exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in numerous products and each product posed its own asbestos exposure risk. This was a major attack on mesothelioma victims rights since they were required to list all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensation damages. They argued that the amount awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and insufficient to the injuries suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their emotional, financial and physical losses. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance sector, since every company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos patients regardless of whether they were not the cause of their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurance companies also attempted to limit asbestos victims' right to be compensated by arguing that the insurance coverage of their employers was adequate at the time of the mesothelioma's onset. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms typically appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation initiated one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered groups plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers hoping to overwhelm court system. They also devised a system for secretly instructing their clients to focus on specific defendants, and they were often paid to do so 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 the asbestos company to settle an legal claim for compensation. The settlement may be reached prior to, during or after the trial, and does not have to meet the same standards as jury verdicts.