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 tremendously important aspect of our history.

A 1973 court decision sparked a firestorm in asbestos lawsuits. The lawsuits were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not impaired.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical structure located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to create legal history but it was exactly the case in 1973. A retired judge was able to uncover a long-standing scheme to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law which states that a business could be held accountable for any harm caused by a product, if they were aware or ought to have been aware of the dangers of its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research showed that asbestos was harmful and was linked to not just lung diseases like asbestosis, but also a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied these risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists developed more accurate tests to confirm the link between illness and asbestos. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos lawsuit lawyers related lawsuits. The first case to gain significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., which was filed in 1969 and decided in 1973.

This case set a precedent for the many asbestos cases that would follow. It was the first time courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal theory of strict liability. Plaintiffs didn't have to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could also sue multiple manufacturers at the same time.

Texas was the next state to reach an important milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005 the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. The law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than speculation or supposition made by hired gun experts. This was a major advancement in the law and has helped to defuse the firestorm of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO. This is a federal statute designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar strategies. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants and claimants.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products posed for decades, manufacturers kept putting profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to keep quiet about asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out in the end, tens of thousands victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One case in 1973 served as the spark that ignited a national litigation blaze. In the three decades that followed there were tens of thousands asbestos lawsuits asbestos were filed. Many of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas, a state with favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 determined that asbestos defendants can be held accountable if they negligently expose an individual to asbestos and the person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the company's actions and set the stage for the mass tort system that is still in place today.

The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to claim their full damages from only one employer, instead of multiple employers. Insurers realized the potential of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began using strategies to limit the exposure.

These cynical tactics included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to limit their liability. They also began to argue the mere presence of asbestos in the air does not constitute negligence, as exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. In some cases these cases, they involve the talcum powder that contains naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma using talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

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 was hoping that the testimony would provide some insight into Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence plan. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began explode. The litigation saga continued for a long time. Many victims developed mesothelioma and asbestos lawsuit history other asbestos-related illnesses. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because asbestos companies were headquartered in Texas.

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

These strategies worked for a time. But the truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers for the victims revealed the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos company executives. Thousands of asbestos workers were in a position to sue asbestos producers for mesothelioma and related conditions.

By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they accepted. Kazan Law focused on a smaller portion of workers who were seriously ill with medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They won several important legal rulings including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the requirement to warn, not just for specific products however, but also for industrial buildings which contained asbestos. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to regroup in court and put money aside to cover future asbestos-related liabilities. However the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies continue paying asbestos-related damages to the present.

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

The Fourth Case

The victory of Clarence Borel led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to attack victims' evidence. They claimed that the ailments of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in many products and each had the risk of exposure to asbestos in its own way. This was a major attack on mesothelioma sufferers' rights because it required them to disclose all asbestos lawsuit after death-exposured employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensation damages. They argued that the amount awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and insufficient 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 accountable for paying large amounts of funds to asbestos victims even if they did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict the rights asbestos victims to recover compensation by arguing that they weren't entitled to any damages that went beyond the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence indicates that there is no safe asbestos exposure level and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually appear 10 years after exposure.

One of the most damaging attacks against asbestos victims came from lawyers who specialized in this type of litigation. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and asbestos lawsuit history filed them in large numbers, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also created a process for secretly coaching their clients to focus on particular defendants, and they were often paid to do so by asbestos companies they targeted.

Although some cases were brought to trial, many victims were able to settle with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company to end a legal claim for compensation. It can be reached prior to, during or after a trial, and is not subject to the same requirements as the verdict of a jury.