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 crucial aspect of our history.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits exploded and was sparked. The lawsuits were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit started in a neoclassical structure on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to record legal history, however, it was exactly the case in 1973. A retired judge was able to uncover a how long does a asbestos lawsuit take-running scheme that was used to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits have their roots in the law of tort which states that a manufacturer or seller of any product may be held accountable for any harm caused by the product if it knew or should have known about the dangers of its use. In the 1950s and 1960s, studies showed asbestos's harmful effects and could cause lung diseases like asbestosis, but also a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied these risks and continued selling their products.

In the 1970s, scientists created more precise tests to confirm the link between illness and asbestos. This resulted in an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case to gain significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. It was filed in 1969 and ruled in 1973.

This case set the stage for a lot of other asbestos cases that will follow. This was the first case in which courts ruled asbestos producers guilty under strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could sue multiple manufacturers simultaneously.

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

More recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' attorneys and their companies under RICO, which is a federal law that was designed to identify those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar strategies. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants and claimants.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos manufacturers knowing the dangers of their products for decades and decades, they put profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to keep from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma asbestos lawsuit. When the truth finally came out the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma Lawsuits Asbestos.

In 1973, a single case led to a storm of litigation across the country. In the three decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas, which had favorable laws governing asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held liable for damages when they negligently exposed someone to asbestos and those exposed to asbestos developed an disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the company's actions and paved the way for the mass tort system that continues today.

The case also set a new bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to recover full damages from just one of their employers instead of several. Insurance companies realized the possibility of a legal strategy to limit exposure to asbestos and began to use tactics to limit the exposure.

These cynical tactics included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to reduce their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not negligent because exposure can occur from various sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing, and there are always new asbestos cases being filed every year. In certain instances these cases, the plaintiffs are suing the talcum powder that contains asbestos fibers that naturally occur. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma using talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

In late 2016, a reporter from the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested that a judge release the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman hoped the testimony would shed some light on Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence strategy. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos-related lawsuits exploded in aftermath of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation saga raged for many years. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because asbestos companies were headquartered there.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers to support their defenses. They also used manipulative tactics on workers, paying them small sums to keep their health issues at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies were effective for a time. However, the truth was revealed in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos companies were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

In the mid-1980s asbestos lawsuit lawyers law firms began to restrict the number of clients they took on. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They won a number important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn was applicable not just to specific products, but also to industrial premises in which asbestos was present. It was later upheld in the case of Jeromson in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

A number of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This gave them the opportunity to reorganize their businesses in court and put money aside for the future asbestos-related liabilities. Unfortunately, Lawsuits asbestos bankruptcy trusts set by these companies continue to have to pay for asbestos-related damages.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was sufficient to prove that the victim worked on a site where asbestos was used. This made it more difficult for the legal system to determine exposure and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to determine their clients' asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the reason for Baron & Budd’s "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims on different fronts.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of the victims. They claimed that the diseases of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, and not only one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in numerous products and each had an asbestos exposure risk. This was a grave attack on the rights of mesothelioma patients as it required them identify all their asbestos-exposed employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over the issue of compensatory damage. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was unreasonable and not proportional to the injuries suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and physical injuries. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance industry as each company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos sufferers regardless of whether they were not the cause of their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurance companies also tried to limit asbestos victims' ability to receive compensation, arguing that the insurance coverage of their employers was sufficient at the time of mesothelioma's development. Medical evidence shows that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that symptoms of mesothelioma usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation have launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a secret coaching method to assist their clients with identifying particular defendants. In many cases, asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

While some cases went to trial, many victims settled with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is an agreement between the victim and asbestos company which ends an legal claim to compensation. It can be reached prior to, during or after a trial, and is not subject to the same conditions as a jury verdict.