Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

A 1973 court decision sparked an uproar in asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of uninjured plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit was initiated in a neoclassical building on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to make legal history, but it was exactly the case in 1973. It was at this point that a judge was called back to the bench after retiring and began to unravel a long-running scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law which states that a business is liable for any harm caused by a product if they knew or should be aware of the dangers of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed that asbestos was dangerous and linked not only to lung diseases like asbestosis, but also to a rare cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted the risks and continued to sell their products.

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

This case set the precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. It was the first time courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. Plaintiffs did not have to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could sue multiple manufacturers at the same time.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law and has helped reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a variety of plaintiffs' attorneys and their firms under RICO, which is a federal law designed to catch those involved in organized crime. The courts have revealed a concerted effort to cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, hide documents and other similar tactics. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions for defendants and the plaintiffs.

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 secret about asbestos-related illnesses, like mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation firestorm. In the years that followed there were tens of thousands asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas which had favorable laws regarding asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held accountable for damages when they negligently exposed a person to asbestos, and those persons developed an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted asbestos litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the company's actions. It set the stage for mass torts, which are still in force today.

The case also set a very high standard for asbestos victims, lawsuit which allowed them to recover the full amount of damages from one of their employers, rather than a number of. Insurance companies recognized the benefits of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began employing strategies to limit the 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 of asbestos in the air does not constitute negligence since exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. In some cases, these claims involve the use of talcum powder, which is a source of asbestos fibers naturally occurring in the environment. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma following using talcum powder in the 1970s and 80s.

In the latter part of 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested that a judge unseal the transcript of Budd's deposition testimony on the coaching memo. Biederman hoped that the testimony could shed light on Baron and Budd's role in mesothelioma's defense strategy However, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began to grow. The litigation war raged for years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws and lawsuit asbestos-related companies are located in Texas.

The defendants fought back against plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers that supported their defenses. They also manipulated employees, paying small amounts to keep their health concerns at bay and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics worked for a while. But the truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers for the victims revealed the Sumner Simpson papers and the brutal conduct of asbestos executives of the company. Thousands of workers were in a position to sue asbestos producers for mesothelioma and other related ailments.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients they would take on. Kazan Law focused on a smaller portion of workers who were seriously ill with medical proof of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They won several important legal rulings including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn referred not just to certain products, but also to industrial premises where raw asbestos was present. It was later affirmed in the case of Jeromson v. Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

Many of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them to reorganize in court and put money aside to pay for future asbestos liabilities. However the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies continue paying out asbestos-related damages today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure it was sufficient to prove that the victim worked at a site where asbestos was used. This undermined the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for plaintiffs' lawyers. This new rule was the reason for Baron & Budd’s "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

After Clarence Borel's victory, more asbestos victims won their lawsuits. But asbestos companies began fight back in order to ensure their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy involved attacking the evidence of victims. They claimed that the victims' illnesses were caused by multiple exposures to asbestos from many employers and not a single exposure. This was because companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product had its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma sufferers' rights because it required them to disclose all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over compensatory damage. They claimed that the amount awarded asbestos victims was excessive and out of proportion with the injuries each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their physical, emotional and financial loss. This was a significant challenge to the insurance industry because it meant that each company was responsible for paying out large sums of money to asbestos victims, even if they did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurers also attempted to restrict the rights of asbestos victims to claim compensation by claiming that they were not entitled to damages that were beyond the amount of their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence indicates that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation launched one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs to file them in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also created a process to secretly coach their clients to focus on particular defendants, and they were often paid by asbestos firms they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trial. An asbestos settlement is a deal between the victim and the asbestos company to settle a legal claim for compensation. It can be reached before or after a trial, and is not subject to the same requirements as the verdict of a jury.