Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

A 1973 court ruling sparked an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of non-impaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to record legal history, but it was exactly the case in 1973. It was at this time that a judge returned to the bench after retiring and began to unravel a long-running scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to extort defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos-related lawsuits have their origins in the law of tort, which states that a manufacturer or seller of any product can be held accountable for any injury caused by the product if the company knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed asbestos's dangers and linked not only to lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma asbestos lawsuit. The asbestos manufacturers resisted the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had created more precise tests that proved the connection between asbestos and disease. This resulted in a dramatic rise in asbestos related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case that gained significant legal recognition. The case was filed in 1969, and asbestos lawsuit settlement was ruled on in 1973.

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

Texas was the next state to reach an important milestone in the history of asbestos litigation. In 2005, the legislature of Texas approved Senate Bill 15 This law required that mesothelioma as well as other asbestos exposure lawsuit 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 that helped to reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a variety of plaintiffs' attorneys and their firms under RICO which is a federal law crafted to catch those involved in organized criminal activity. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, evade and dispose of asbestos waste, hide documents and other similar tactics have been exposed by the courts, leading to several RICO convictions for both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

The Second Case

Despite knowing the dangers asbestos products posed for decades, companies kept putting profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed into keeping quiet about veterans asbestos lawsuits-related illnesses like mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out, tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One case in 1973 served as the spark that ignited a national litigation blaze. In the decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws governing asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held responsible for damages if they negligently exposed someone to asbestos, and those persons developed an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the actions of the company and laid the foundation for the mass tort system which continues to this day.

The case also set high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to claim their full compensation from only one employer, rather than many. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal strategy and began to implement strategies to limit their exposure.

These cynical strategies included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to lessen their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air wasn't negligent because exposure can occur from many sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. In certain instances these cases, they involve the talcum powder that contains asbestos fibers that naturally occur. These cases often involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman was hoping that the testimony could shed light on Baron and Budd's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy, but the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began to increase in volume. The litigation saga raged for years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws, and asbestos companies have located in Texas.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs' claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers to support their defenses. They also manipulate employees, offering small amounts to keep their health issues quiet and encouraging them to sign confidentiality contracts.

These tactics worked for a time. But the truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma and other diseases.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients they accepted. Kazan Law focused on a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical proof of asbestos lawsuit settlement - www.autogenmotors.com - exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the 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 that the duty to warn referred not just to certain products but to industrial premises where raw asbestos was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize their businesses in court and put money aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts set up by these companies still pay asbestos-related damages.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was enough to show that the victim was at a place of work where asbestos was used. This undermined the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for lawyers representing plaintiffs. Baron & Budd's "coaching memo" was the result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They began to attack victims on different fronts.

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

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs on the issue of compensation damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was unjust and out of proportion to the injuries that each victim suffered. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their emotional, financial and physical losses. This posed a major challenge to the insurance industry as each company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos patients, even if they were not the cause of their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also tried to limit asbestos victims' right to be compensated by arguing that their employer's insurance coverage was sufficient at the time of the mesothelioma's development. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure level and that mesothelioma-related symptoms typically appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation have launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a method to secretly coach their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid by asbestos companies they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trials. An asbestos lawsuit settlement amount settlement is a contract between the victim and asbestos company that ends a legal claim of compensation. It can be reached before or after a trial, and is not subject to the same conditions as a jury verdict.