Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos suits are handled in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve a significant number of claims at once.

The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to warn consumers of the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of the construction industry named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos cancer lawsuit mesothelioma settlement insulation producers did not adequately warn workers about the risks of inhaling the hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits could award victims compensation for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. The compensation can consist of a monetary amount for pain and Class action discomfort as well as lost earnings, medical costs as well as property damage. Based on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.

Despite warnings for many years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for affordable and durable construction materials to accommodate the growing population. Growing demand for low-cost asbestos products, which were mass-produced, led to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies failed, and others settled the lawsuits asbestos with large sums of money. However the lawsuits and other investigations revealed a huge amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The litigation that followed led to the conviction of many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).

In a Neoclassical building made of limestone located on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and rob trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.

For instance, he discovered that in one case, a lawyer told a jury his client had only been exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence showed a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers created false claims, hid information, and even created fake evidence to get asbestos victims settlements.

Other judges have since observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, but not at the level of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the continuing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe companies.

The Second Case

Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases because of the negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos cancer lawsuit-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their losses.

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 the asbestos-containing insulation producers responsible for his injuries, because they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in awards or verdicts for victims.

Many companies were trying to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write papers to support their arguments in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the real health risks of asbestos.

One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims pursue multiple defendants at the same time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it could be beneficial in certain situations, it can cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.

Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that will aid them in limiting the extent of their liability. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also want to limit the types damages a judge can award. This is a very important issue, as it will affect the amount a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The number of mesothelioma cases began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies once used in various construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people suffering from mesothelioma focused on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.

The mesothelioma latency time is lengthy, which means that patients don't typically exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related diseases due to its long latency period. Asbestos is a hazardous material, and companies that use it often cover up their use.

Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy because of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover the future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers and other asbestos-related diseases.

This has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured, but were used together with asbestos material which was later purchased. This argument is well-executed in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

A series of large asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, occurred in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into one trial, slowed the number of asbestos lawsuits, and resulted in significant savings for businesses involved in litigation.

In 2005, the passage of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an important step in the asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or suppositions made by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, and the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively put out the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

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

This strategy has proven be very efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma must seek out a reputable firm as soon as is possible. Even if you aren't sure you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.

In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by different litigants. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace suing companies that mined and made asbestos products. Another group of litigants included those exposed at the home or in public buildings suing property owners and employers. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases filed suit against distributors of asbestos-containing materials and manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed asbestos projects, and numerous other parties.

One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in taking asbestos cases to court and provoking them in large quantities. One of them was the law firm of baron and budd asbestos settlement & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of coaching its clients to target specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk, with little regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by the courts, and legislative remedies were put in place that slowed 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 an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice against the asbestos companies that have harmed you.