Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos class action lawsuit asbestos exposure History

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

Following a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits exploded and began to take hold. The cases were filed by thousands of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical house located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973, a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District became the site of a legal landmark. It was at this time that a judge returned to the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law, which stipulates that a company is liable for any harm caused by a product if they knew or should have known about the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, studies showed asbestos's harmful effects and linked to not only lung diseases such as asbestosis but also a rare cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued to sell their products.

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

This case set the stage for many of the other asbestos cases that will follow. It was the first time that the courts ruled that asbestos producers could be found guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue multiple manufacturers at once.

Texas was the next state that reached the landmark in asbestos litigation history. In 2005 the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required that mesothelioma as well as other asbestos cases be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of supposition and conjecture from hired-gun experts. This was a significant change in the law and has helped defuse the firestorm of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit litigation have included the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO, which is a federal law designed to identify those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar strategies. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants and claimants.

The Second Case

Despite knowing the dangers asbestos lawsuit louisiana products could pose for decades, companies continued to place profits before safety. Workers were bribed to remain quiet about asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out in the end, tens of thousands victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One case in 1973 served as the spark that ignited a national litigation firestorm. In the subsequent three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos class action lawsuit lawsuits have been filed. A majority of these asbestos lawsuits were brought in Texas, a state with favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision 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 exposure lawsuit settlements-related disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the actions of the company and paved the way for the mass tort system that continues today.

The case also set high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their entire damages from just one employer instead of multiple employers. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal strategy and started using strategies to reduce their exposure.

To reduce the risk of liability, these cynical tactics include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence asbestos in the air didn't constitute negligence, since exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues, and there are always new asbestos cases filed every year. The claims often involve Talcum, a substance that naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after using talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

In the last quarter of 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman, asked a judge to unseal the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman was hoping that the testimony could shed light on Baron & Budd's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy, but the trial court refused the request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began explode. The litigation saga raged for years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and because the asbestos companies were headquartered in Texas.

The defendants fought back against plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and publish papers that supported their defenses. They also manipulated workers by paying them small amounts to keep their health issues secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a time. The truth came out in the late 1970s when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Many workers were in a position to sue asbestos producers for mesothelioma and other related ailments.

By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients that they accepted. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a small number of seriously ill employees 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 duty to warn not just for Mesothelioma Lawyer Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit specific products but also for industrial buildings which contained asbestos. The duty to warn was later confirmed in the case of Jeromson v. Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

A number of the biggest asbestos producers filed for bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize themselves in court and put money aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. However the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies are still paying asbestos-related damages to the present.

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 jobsite at which asbestos was employed. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to identify their clients' asbestos-containing products. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was the consequence of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

The victory of Clarence Borel led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to attack evidence from victims. They claimed that the ailments of victims were caused by multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, and not just one 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 serious attack on mesothelioma patients right to rights as it required them to disclose all asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over the issue of compensatory damage. They asserted that the amount paid to asbestos victims was excessive and not proportional to the injuries that each victim suffered. Asbestos sufferers were seeking compensation for their emotional, physical and financial loss. This presented a major problem for the insurance industry since it meant that each business was responsible for paying out large sums of money to asbestos victims even if the companies did not directly cause their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also attempted to restrict asbestos victims' rights to be compensated by claiming that the insurance coverage of their employers was sufficient at the time of mesothelioma's development. Medical evidence indicates that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that symptoms of mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer Lawsuit usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation initiated one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a secret coaching process to assist their clients in identifying specific defendants. Many times, asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled before or during trials. An asbestos settlement is a deal between a victim and an asbestos company to stop the legal claim to compensation. The settlement may be reached during, before or after the trial. It is not required to satisfy the same requirements as jury verdicts.