Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won, more asbestos disease compensation claims than any other law firm. This has been an extremely important part of our history.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision, asbestos lawsuits exploded and began to take hold. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It seems an unlikely place to create legal history however, that's exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able uncover a long-standing scheme to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law which states that any company can be held responsible for any harm caused by a product if it knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, Asbestos Lawsuit History studies showed that asbestos was harmful and could cause lung diseases such as asbestosis but also a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers resisted the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more accurate tests that proved the connection between asbestos and health. This resulted in a significant increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to receive significant legal recognition. It was filed in 1969 and was ruled on in 1973.

This case set the stage for the many other asbestos cases to come. It was the first time that courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal theory of strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the company, 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 Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 15 This law required that mesothelioma and other asbestos cases be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of speculation and conjecture from 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 include the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their firms under RICO, which is a federal law designed to catch those who are involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar strategies. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants as well as plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos producers being aware of the dangers of their products for decades, they continued to put profits over safety. They even bribed workers to keep quiet about their exposure to asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged, tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

In 1973, a single instance set off a blaze of litigation across the country. In the three decades that followed there were tens of thousands asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held liable when they negligently expose a person to asbestos and the person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the company's actions and paved the way for the mass tort system which continues today.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims which allowed them to seek the full amount of damages from one of their employers rather than several. Insurance companies recognized the benefits of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began using strategies to limit the exposure.

To limit liability, these cynical methods include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue the presence of asbestos in the air did not constitute negligence, as exposure can occur from many sources.

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

In late 2016, a reporter for the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman, asked a judge to reveal the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman believed that the testimony could provide some insight into Budd and Baron's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy. However, the trial court denied her request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits asbestos began to increase in volume. The litigation saga raged for a long time. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws and the asbestos companies are located in Texas.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to research and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulated workers, paying them small sums to keep their health issues at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies worked for a short period of time. The truth was revealed in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers for the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless behavior of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

In the mid-1980s asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients they took on. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller group of seriously ill workers with 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 like Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn referred not just to specific products but to industrial premises in which asbestos was present. It was later upheld 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 regroup through the courts and set aside funds aside to pay for future asbestos-related obligations. However, the bankruptcy trusts created by these companies are still paying out asbestos-related damages today.

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

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory paved the way for the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy was to attack evidence from victims. They claimed that the diseases of victims were the result of multiple asbestos exposures from a variety of employers, not just one exposure. This was because companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each was characterized by its own unique asbestos exposure risks. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma patients as it required them identify all their asbestos-exposed employers.

Defense lawyers also began to challenge plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They argued that the amount awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and not proportional to the harms suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, physical and financial losses. This was a major challenge to the insurance industry as it meant that each company was responsible for paying out large amounts of money to asbestos victims, even if the companies did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurance companies also attempted to limit asbestos victims' ability to be compensated, arguing that the insurance coverage of their employers was adequate at the time of the development of mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence proved that there was no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms typically occur 10 years after exposure.

One of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims came from lawyers who were specialized in this type of litigation. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a shady coaching system to assist their clients with identifying particular defendants. In many cases, asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trials. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between the victim and asbestos company which ends a legal claim of compensation. It may be reached prior to, during or after a trial, and is not subject to the same rules as a jury verdict.