Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complex process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims in one go.

The law requires manufacturers of hazardous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing items.

The First Case

One of the first asbestos trust fund settlements lawsuits ever filed was filed by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several manufacturers of asbestos insulation products failed to warn workers of the dangers of breathing in asbestos, a hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damage can include a sum of money to ease pain and discomfort as well as lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.

Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos around the world surpassed 109,000 metric tons. The massive demand for asbestos was driven primarily by the need for sturdy and Asbestos lawsuits affordable construction materials in order to support the growth of population. The growing demand for cheap asbestos products, which were mass-produced, contributed to the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industry.

By the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits with large sums of money. However, investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had committed numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The litigation that followed led to the conviction of many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

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

He found, for example in one instance, a lawyer claimed to jurors that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence suggested a far greater range of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, hid information, and even created fake evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.

Other judges have also observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, although not at the level of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe to asbestos victims.

The Second Case

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

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma after a period of 33 years working as an insulation worker. The court held asbestos-containing insulation producers responsible for his injuries because they did not warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.

As asbestos litigation grew and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the litigation were trying to find ways to reduce their liability. They did this by paying shady "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would help them argue their case in the courtroom. These companies also utilized their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth about asbestos's health hazards.

Class action lawsuits are one of the most troubling developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to take on multiple defendants at one time instead of filing individual lawsuits against every company. While this tactic may be helpful in some situations, it can lead to a lot of confusion and waste of time for asbestos victims and their families. Additionally the courts have a long track record of denying class action lawsuits in asbestos lawsuit compensation cases.

Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that will help them limit the scope of their liabilities. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held accountable. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that jurors may award. This is a very important issue, as it will affect the amount of money the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The number of mesothelioma lawsuits began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos which was often used in construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.

Mesothelioma sufferers have a long latency period, meaning people do not usually show symptoms of the illness until decades after exposure to the material. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of its lengthy time of latency. In addition, the companies who used asbestos often covered up their use of asbestos because they knew it was dangerous.

A number of asbestos firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to reform under court supervision and set money aside to cover future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

However, this also triggered an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits (look at this site). Some defendants, for asbestos lawsuits example, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't made, but were utilized together with asbestos material which was later purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good example of this argument.

In the 1980s and into the 1990s, New York was home to a series of large asbestos trials, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the leading counsel in these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were combined into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and also resulted in significant savings to companies involved in litigation.

In 2005, the passing 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 legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition by an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, along with the passage of other reforms similar to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began to attack their opponents lawyers representing them. This tactic is designed to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma asbestos lawsuit.

This strategy has proven to be very effective. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma must seek out a reputable firm as soon as is possible. Even if you don't think that you have mesothelioma experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.

In the beginning asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. In the second, those exposed in public or private structures sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos lawsuit payouts-related diseases filed suit against asbestos-containing material distributors, manufacturers of protective gear, banks that financed asbestos projects, and many other parties.

Texas was the scene of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and bringing them to trial in huge quantities. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of educating its clients to select specific defendants and filing cases in bulk with little regard for accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by courts and legislative remedies were put in place which helped to stop the litigation raging.

Asbestos sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, which includes medical treatment costs. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure that you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer will review your personal circumstances and determine if you're in an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and help you seek justice against asbestos companies that have harmed you.