Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

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

The First Case

One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by an employee of the construction industry named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a wide range of injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of cash amount to ease pain and discomfort, lost earnings, medical costs, and property damages. Based on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings for years and despite warnings from the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and robust construction materials to support population growth. The demand for cheap mass-produced products made from asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of mining and manufacturing industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits with large sums of cash. However the lawsuits and other investigations revealed a huge amount of fraud and corruption by plaintiff's attorneys and asbestos companies. The lawsuits that followed led to convictions of many individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).

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

For instance, he found that in one case the lawyer claimed to the jury that the client was only exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence pointed to an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys made up assertions, concealed information and asbestos even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the compensation they wanted.

Since the time other judges have also observed the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits, but not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimations of the amount asbestos victims owe companies.

The Second Case

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

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court ruled that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries because they failed to inform him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in verdicts or awards for victims.

As asbestos litigation grew, many of the companies involved in the cases were trying to find ways to limit their liability. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and produce papers that could support their arguments in court. They also employed their resources to to skew public perception of the facts about the asbestos's health risks.

One of the most troubling trends in asbestos exposure lawsuit settlements litigation is the use of class action lawsuit asbestos exposure action lawsuits. 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 approach can be beneficial in certain situations, it can result in a lot confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. In addition 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 decide that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They are also trying to limit the types of damages juries can decide to award. This is an important issue since it could affect the amount of money a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure, a mineral that was often used in construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

Mesothelioma has long periods of latency that means that people don't usually show symptoms of the disease until many years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is a hazard and companies that make use of it often conceal their use.

The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to organize themselves in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

This prompted defendants to seek legal decisions that would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. For example, some defendants have attempted to claim that their products were not made from asbestos-containing materials, but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials later purchased by defendants. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) provides a good example of this argument.

A series of large consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits, and resulted in significant savings to companies 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 legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or suppositions made by an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, as well as the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively squelched the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

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

This strategy has proven to be extremely efficient. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma must seek out a reputable firm as soon as they can. Even if you don't believe you have mesothelioma-related cancer, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can locate evidence of your exposure and create a convincing case.

In the beginning asbestos litigation was characterized by a range of legal claims. First, there were workers exposed in the workplace suing businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos products. Then, those exposed in private or public buildings sued their employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses, sue suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using asbestos and numerous other parties.

Texas was the location of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in bringing asbestos cases to court and provoking them in large quantities. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of instructing its clients to target specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. This method of "junk science" in largest asbestos settlement lawsuits was later rescinded by courts and legislative remedies were put in place that helped douse the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims need fair compensation for their losses, which includes medical costs. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure that you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can review your individual circumstances and determine if you're in an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos companies that have harmed you.