Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won more asbestos disease compensation claims than any other law firm. This has been an extremely important aspect of our history.

A 1973 court ruling set off a firestorm in asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of uninjured plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical house located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to record legal history, however, it was exactly the case in 1973. It was at this point that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits are rooted in the law of tort which states that a manufacturer or seller of any product can be held liable for any harm caused by the product if the company knew or should have been aware of the danger of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated asbestos's dangers and was linked to not just lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare type of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied these risks and continued selling their products.

In the 1970s, scientists developed more accurate tests to prove the connection between asbestos and illness. This led to an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case that gained significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. It was filed in 1969 and decided in 1973.

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

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. This law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos personal injury lawsuit cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of conjecture and supposition from hired gun experts. This was a significant change in the law and has helped stop the raging asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their firms under RICO which is a federal law that was designed to identify those involved in organized crime. The courts have revealed a concerted effort to hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar strategies. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants as well as claimants.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers that asbestos products posed for decades, companies put profits over safety. Workers were bribed into keeping quiet about asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out in the end, tens of thousands victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation firestorm. In the subsequent three decades, tens and 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 ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos exposure lawsuit defendants could be held accountable for damages when they negligently exposed a person to asbestos and the person developed an asbestos-related lawsuit disease. The case moved asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and towards the actions of the company. It set the stage for mass torts that continue today.

The case also set high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their entire damages from just one employer instead of several. Insurance companies realized the possibility of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began employing strategies to limit exposure.

To limit liability, these cynical methods include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air does not constitute negligence, since exposure can occur from many sources.

Asbestos litigation is still ongoing, and there are always new asbestos cases filed each year. In some cases, these claims involve 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 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court unseal Budd's transcript of his deposition testimony about the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman hoped that the testimony could shed light on Baron & Budd's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy However, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation saga raged for years. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit and other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws, and asbestos companies have located in Texas.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulate employees by paying small amounts to keep their health concerns quiet and encouraging employees to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies worked for a while. The truth was revealed in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless conduct of asbestos company executives. Thousands of asbestos workers were able to sue asbestos manufacturers for mesothelioma and related conditions.

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

Lawyers fought asbestos companies in their attempts to limit liability. They were successful in a variety of important legal rulings, including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn was applicable not only to specific products but to industrial premises where asbestos was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the largest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize themselves in court and put money aside for the future asbestos-related liabilities. Sadly, bankruptcy trusts set up by these companies still 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 asbestos exposure, it was enough to prove that the victim worked at a place that used asbestos. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to determine their clients' asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for Baron and Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory paved the way for the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to challenge the victims' evidence. They claimed that the ailments of victims were the result of multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, and not only one exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in a variety of products and asbestos-Related Lawsuit each had the risk of exposure to asbestos in its own way. This was a major attack on mesothelioma victims rights since it required them to identify all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damage. They claimed that the amount they awarded asbestos victims was excessive and not in proportion to the suffering each victim endured. Asbestos sufferers were seeking compensation for their physical, emotional and financial loss. This presented a major problem for the insurance industry since it meant that every company was responsible for paying out large sums of money to asbestos victims even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurers also tried to restrict the rights of veterans asbestos lawsuits victims to claim compensation by claiming that they weren't entitled to any damages that were beyond the amount of their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they developed their mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type litigation launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a secret coaching process to assist their clients in identifying specific defendants. Often asbestos companies paid them to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trial. A settlement involving asbestos is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company that settles a legal claim of compensation. It can be reached prior to, during or after a trial and is not subject to the same rules as a jury verdict.