Thompsons Solicitors' asbestos lawsuit settlements Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been an extremely significant aspect of our history.

A 1973 court ruling sparked an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. The lawsuits were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not impaired.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to create legal history however, that's exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able discover a how long does a asbestos lawsuit take-running scheme to defraud defendants and deplete 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 asbestos was a danger and linked not only to lung disease 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 had developed more accurate tests that confirmed the link between asbestos and illness. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to receive significant legal recognition. It was filed in the year 1969 and decided in 1973.

This case set the tone for a lot of asbestos cases to follow. This was the first instance where courts held asbestos producers guilty under strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove that the companies committed negligence and allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at the same time.

Texas was the next state that reached an important milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the legislature of Texas passed Senate Bill 15. Senate Bill 15 The law required that mesothelioma and other asbestos cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of speculation and conjecture from hired-gun experts. This was a significant change in the law and has helped to defuse the firestorm of asbestos litigation.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of several plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies, under RICO. This is a federal statute designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activities. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar tactics. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants as well as the plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products could pose for decades, manufacturers put profits over safety. They even bribed workers to conceal the dangers of asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma patients received damages when the truth was finally revealed.

One case in 1973 served as the spark that ignited a national litigation firestorm. In the years that followed there were tens of thousands asbestos lawsuit payouts lawsuits were filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas which had favorable laws governing asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held accountable if they negligently expose a person to asbestos, and this person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of Asbestos Exposure Lawsuit Settlements litigation away from the individual worker and instead towards the actions of the company. It paved the way for mass torts that continue to this day.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to recover all damages from only one of their employers rather than several. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal method and began to implement strategies to limit their exposure.

In order to reduce liability, these cynical strategies include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not a cause for negligence because exposure can occur from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and there are new asbestos cases being filed every year. These claims sometimes involve talcum, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

In the latter part of 2016, a reporter for the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman, asked a judge to release the transcript of Budd's deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo. Biederman believed that the testimony could shed some light on Budd and Baron's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

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

The defendants fought back against the plaintiffs claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also manipulate employees, offering small amounts to keep their health issues at bay and urging employees to sign confidentiality agreements.

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

By the mid-1980s asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients that they would accept. Kazan Law focused on a smaller number of seriously ill workers who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought against asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They won a number crucial legal rulings, such as Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the duty to warn not just for specific products but also for industrial buildings that contained asbestos raw. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

Many of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This gave them the opportunity to reorganize their businesses in court and set money aside for future asbestos obligations. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts set by these companies continue to compensate asbestos-related damage.

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

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began to fight back in order to ensure their profits. They began to attack victims on many different areas.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of victims. They claimed that the diseases of victims were the result of multiple asbestos exposures from a variety of employers, and not just one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in a variety of products, and each one posed its own asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious attack on mesothelioma victims rights since it required them to disclose all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over the issue of compensatory damage. They asserted that the amount paid to asbestos victims was unjust and not proportional to the harms suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their financial, emotional and physical damages. This was a significant challenge for asbestos exposure lawsuit settlements the insurance industry since it meant that each business was responsible for paying out large sums of money to asbestos victims even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurance companies also tried to limit asbestos victims' ability to claim compensation by arguing that the insurance coverage of their employers was sufficient at the time of mesothelioma's onset. Medical evidence shows that there is no asbestos lawsuit exposure limit that is safe and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

One of the most devastating attacks against asbestos victims came from lawyers who were specialized in this kind of litigation. They gathered groups plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also developed a secret coaching process to assist their clients in identifying specific defendants. Many times asbestos companies paid them to do this.

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