Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a major role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.

Manufacturers of dangerous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies who mine, mill or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing items.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation manufacturers failed to warn workers of the risks of inhaling asbestos attorney, a hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can provide victims with compensation for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of sum of money for discomfort and pain and lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damages. In the case of a area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages meant to penalize companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings for many years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 tonnes. The massive consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for affordable and durable construction materials to accommodate population growth. The demand for cheap manufactured products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were facing thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits using large sums of cash. However lawsuits and other investigations showed a huge amount of corruption and fraud by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The subsequent litigation resulted in convictions for a number of individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).

In a limestone building that was built in the Neoclassical style located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.

For instance, he found that in one case the lawyer claimed to the jury that the client had only been exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence pointed to a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers fabricated claims, concealed information, and even fabricated proof to secure asbestos victims' settlements.

Since the time other judges have also noted the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.

The Second Case

Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases due to the negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not uncommon for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their loss.

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found that the makers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries since they did not inform him of the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and ending in verdicts or awards for victims.

While asbestos litigation was growing, many of the companies involved in the cases were trying to find ways to limit their liability. They did this by hiring shady "experts" to conduct research and then publish documents that would allow them to present their arguments in the courtroom. They also employed their resources to to skew public perception of the truth about the asbestos's health hazards.

One of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow victims to sue several defendants at once, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy may be helpful in certain cases, could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. Additionally, the courts have a long track record of denying class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are attempting to get judges to accept that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that a juror can award. This is an extremely important issue, as it will affect the amount the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The number of mesothelioma lawsuits increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was previously used in a variety of construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.

The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, meaning that people don't usually develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is a hazard and businesses that use it often cover up their use.

A number of asbestos companies declared bankruptcy due to the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to reform under the supervision of a court and put money aside to cover current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.

This also triggered an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that could limit their liability in asbestos lawyers lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products weren't made, but were utilized together with asbestos material which was later purchased. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

In the 1980s and into the 1990s, New York was home to a number of major asbestos trials, like the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the chief counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits, and provided significant savings to companies involved in litigation.

Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or suppositions made by an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, and the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively put out the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies ran out of defenses to the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their opponents and the lawyers that represent them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous that is designed to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma which followed.

This method has proven to be very effective. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you don't think you have mesothelioma-related cancer, an expert firm with the right resources can locate evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.

In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a broad variety of legal claims filed by different types of litigants. Workers exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. Then, those exposed in private or public buildings sued their employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses sued asbestos-containing material distributors as well as manufacturers of protective equipment and banks that funded asbestos attorney projects, as well as numerous other parties.

Texas was the site of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in bringing asbestos cases to court and fomenting them in large quantities. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of coaching its clients to select specific defendants and filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually rebuked this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies to end the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims are entitled to an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, which includes medical costs. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to make sure you receive the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can analyze your particular situation, determine whether you have a viable mesothelioma case and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos firms that hurt you.