Asbestos Lawsuit History

Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing businesses and employers have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy as well as individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal tactics in their cases.

Many asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has handled cases that involved settlements of class action lawsuit asbestos exposure actions that sought to limit liability.

Anna Pirskowski

In the mid-1900s, a woman called Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related diseases and passed away. Her case was significant because it triggered asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers, firm and led to an increase in claims from people who were diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma, or other diseases. These lawsuits led to the trust funds being created which were used by bankrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their family members to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and pain.

The asbestos-effected workers often bring the asbestos-containing material home to their families. Inhaling asbestos fibers can cause family members to experience the same symptoms as the exposed counterparts. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory problems lung cancer, mesothelioma.

Although many asbestos companies were aware asbestos was a risk however, they minimized the risks and refused to inform their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. Asbestos was identified as carcinogenic in the 1930s according to research conducted by Johns Manville.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, but it didn't start to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. At this point health professionals and doctors were already trying to warn the public to asbestos' dangers. These efforts were largely successful. Lawsuits and news articles were launched to educate people however, many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.

Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned from the United States, the mesothelioma problem continues to be a major issue for people across the country. Asbest is still found in commercial and residential buildings even before the 1970s. It is essential that those diagnosed with mesothelioma or firm any other asbestos-related disease, seek legal advice. An experienced attorney can assist them in obtaining the justice they deserve. They will be able to comprehend the complicated laws that apply to this particular case and make sure they receive the best possible outcome.

Claude Tomplait

Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in the year 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. His lawsuit asbestos alleged that they failed to warn of the dangers of their insulation products. This crucial case opened the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed.

The majority of the asbestos litigation concerns those who worked in the construction industry that employed asbestos-containing products. This includes electricians, plumbers and carpenters and drywall installers as well as roofers. A few of these workers are suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved family members.

A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer can result in millions of dollars in damages. These funds can be used to pay for past and future medical costs, lost wages and pain and suffering. It can also pay for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.

Asbestos litigation has forced a number of businesses into bankruptcy and created asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. The litigation has also put pressure on federal and state courts. Additionally it has consumed thousands of hours of attorneys and witnesses.

The asbestos litigation was a long and costly process that spanned many years. The asbestos litigation was a long and costly process that stretched over years. However, it was successful in the exposing of asbestos executives who kept the truth about asbestos over many years. They were aware of the dangers and pushed workers to keep quiet about their health issues.

After many years of trial, appeal and court rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based upon the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is responsible for the harm caused to the consumer or end-user of its product if it is sold in a defected condition, without adequate warning."

After the verdict was reached the defendants were required to pay damages to Tomplait's widow, Jacqueline Watson. Watson passed away before the final award could be determined by the court. Kazan Law offered to appeal the Appellate Court decision to the California Supreme Court.

Clarence Borel

Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos insulators like Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory problems and thickening fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, downplayed asbestos' health risks. In the 1960s, more medical research began to link asbestos with respiratory ailments like asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the dangers of their products. He claimed he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled that defendants had a responsibility to warn.

The defendants claim that they did nothing wrong because they were aware of asbestos' dangers long before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis can not appear until 15 to 20 years, or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. If these experts are correct they could have been liable for the injuries that other workers might have developed asbestosis before Borel.

Moreover, the defendants argue that they should not be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma because it was his choice to continue to work with asbestos-containing insulation. However, they ignore the evidence gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos' dangers for a long time and suppressed the risk information.

The 1970s saw an increase in asbestos-related litigation, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos-related lawsuits flooded the courts and a multitude of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. In the wake of the litigation, many asbestos-related businesses went under and set up trust funds to compensate victims of asbestos-related diseases. As the litigation progressed it became clear that asbestos companies were responsible to the extent of the damage caused by toxic substances. The asbestos industry was forced to reforming their business practices. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been resolved for millions of dollars.

Stanley Levy

Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also addressed these issues at several legal seminars and conferences. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has been a member of various committees that deal with mesothelioma, asbestos and mass torts. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.

The firm charges a fee of 33 percent plus costs for compensations it obtains for its clients. It has won some the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation history such as the $22 million verdict for a man with mesothelioma who worked at an New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed lawsuits on behalf of tens of thousands of people suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases.

Despite its achievements, the company faces increased criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system and skewing statistics. The firm has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response to this, the firm has launched a public defense fund and is seeking donations from individuals and corporations.

A second problem is that a lot of defendants do not believe that asbestos is a cause of mesothelioma even at low levels. They have used the funds provided by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" to publish papers in journals of academic research that support their claims.

Attorneys are not only disputing the scientific consensus about asbestos, but are also looking at other aspects of cases. They are arguing, for instance, about the constructive notification required to make an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim had a real understanding of the dangers of asbestos to be eligible for compensation. They also argue over the proportion of compensation among various asbestos-related diseases.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs argue there is a significant public interest in awarding compensatory damages for people who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that the companies that produced asbestos personal injury lawsuit should have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.