Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complicated manner. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims all at once.

The law requires companies that manufacture hazardous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing substances.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers failed to warn workers about the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits may compensate victims for various injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include cash value for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Depending on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages meant to penalize companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite years of warnings numerous manufacturers continued to use asbestos in a variety of products throughout the United States. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 tonnes. The massive demand for asbestos was driven primarily by the need for durable and cheap construction materials in order to accommodate population growth. The growing demand for cheap asbestos lawsuit settlement amount products that were mass-produced helped to fuel the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos producers were facing thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits using large sums of money. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had committed many frauds and corrupt practices. The lawsuits that followed led to convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).

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

Hodges found, for instance, that in one case a lawyer claimed to the jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence indicated a much greater range of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers used false claims, concealed information, and even faked evidence to get asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.

Since then, other judges have noted some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits but not as much as 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

The negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products has resulted in the emergence of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. The victims often receive substantial compensation.

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries because they did not warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of future asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in awards or verdicts for victims.

While asbestos litigation was on the rise in the industry, many of the companies involved in the litigation were looking for ways to minimize their liability. They did this by hiring shady "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would help them present their arguments in the courtroom. These companies also utilized their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth regarding asbestos's health hazards.

One of the most troubling developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it could be beneficial in certain cases, could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. In addition the courts have a long track record of refusing class action lawsuit asbestos exposure action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are attempting to get judges to agree only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are trying to limit the types of damages juries are able to give. This is an important issue since it could affect the amount of money victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The mesothelioma-related lawsuits increased in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was a mineral previously used in a variety of construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies that exposed them to asbestos.

Mesothelioma has long periods of latency, meaning people do not often show signs of the disease until many years after being exposed to the material. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. Asbestos is a hazardous material and businesses that use it often cover up their use.

Many asbestos-related lawsuit companies declared bankruptcy because of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reorganize under court supervision and set money aside to cover current and future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

This led defendants to seek legal decisions that would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured but were used in conjunction with asbestos material that was later purchased. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

In the 1980s, and into the 1990s, New York was home to a number of major asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.

Another significant development in asbestos litigation came with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in asbestos lawsuits be based on peer-reviewed scientific research, rather than on conjecture or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, in conjunction with the passing of other similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies ran out of defenses to the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their opponents and the lawyers who represent them. This strategy is designed to make the plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a dishonest tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This method has proven to be extremely effective, and this is the reason why those who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should speak with a reputable firm as soon as is possible. Even if you aren't sure you're suffering from mesothelioma experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.

In the beginning, asbestos litigation was characterized by a variety of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. Another group of litigants included those who were exposed at home or in public structures seeking compensation from employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases, asbestos lawsuit History sued distributors of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects that used asbestos, and many other parties.

Texas was the site of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and provoking them in large numbers. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of educating its clients to focus on particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk, with little regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts and legislative remedies were enacted that slowed the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including the cost of medical treatment. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you have a right to, contact a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as soon as possible. A lawyer can review the facts of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.