Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at one time.
Manufacturers of dangerous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies that manufacture, mill or mine asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include cash value for suffering and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on where you live the victim may also be awarded punitive damages in order to punish the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite numerous warnings numerous manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products throughout the United States. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos in the world exceeded 109,000 metric tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and robust construction materials to support the increasing population. Growing demand for low-cost asbestos products that were mass-produced led to the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies failed and others settled lawsuits for large sums of money. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in a large amount of fraud and corrupt practices. The subsequent litigation led to convictions for many individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to fraudulently defraud defendants and to drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the face of asbestos lawsuits.
Hodges discovered, for instance, that in one case the lawyer told the jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence showed a larger scope of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information and even created fake evidence to obtain asbestos victims' settlements.
Other judges have discovered legal evasions in asbestos cases, although not as extensive 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 asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses due to the negligence of businesses that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive significant compensation for their loss.
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 determined that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to win verdicts and awards for victims.
As asbestos litigation grew and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the cases were looking for ways to limit their liability. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write papers that could support their arguments in court. These companies also utilized their resources to influence public opinion about the truth about asbestos's health risks.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of filing separate lawsuits against each company. While this approach can be beneficial in certain cases, it can result in a lot confusion and time wastage for asbestos victims and their families. The courts have also rejected asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to search for legal rulings that will assist them in limiting the scope of their liability. They are attempting to get judges to accept that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that jurors can award. This is a significant issue since it could affect the amount of money that victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma lawsuits began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease develops following exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies once used in a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma focused on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
The mesothelioma latency time is long, which means that people don't usually develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. In addition, the companies who used asbestos often covered up their use of the material because they knew it was a risk.
Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the mesothelioma litigation lawsuits. This allowed them to reform under court supervision and set funds aside to cover current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related illnesses.
This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings that would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have tried to claim that their products were not made of asbestos-containing material but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were later purchased by defendants. This argument is well-executed in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A series of large asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials which were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as leading counsel in these cases as well as other major asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were combined into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to companies involved in litigation.
Another important development in asbestos litigation came with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms to the law required the evidence used in asbestos lawsuits be based on peer-reviewed scientific research rather than based on speculation or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of other similar reforms, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
Missouri City asbestos attorney
As the asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims, they began to attack their adversaries - the lawyers who represent them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a dishonest method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This approach has proven efficient, and that 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 don't think you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can find evidence to support a claim.
In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by different litigants. First, there were workers exposed at work suing businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos products. Then, those exposed in private or public buildings sued their employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases sued asbestos-containing material distributors and manufacturers of protective gear, banks that financed asbestos projects, as well as many other parties.
Texas was the site of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and bringing them to trial in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which became famous for its secret method of instructing clients to select specific defendants and for filing cases without regard to accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts and legislative remedies were put in place that slowed the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, which includes medical expenses. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure that you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case and determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.