Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled through an intricate process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have been a major part of asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims at once.
Companies that produce dangerous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly applicable to companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits may award victims compensation for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include cash value for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Depending on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages to punish the company for their wrongful actions.
Despite years of warnings, many companies continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 tonnes. The massive consumption of asbestos was fueled by a need for cheap and durable construction materials to accommodate population growth. The demand for low-cost manufactured products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of mining and manufacturing industries.
In the year 1980, asbestos companies faced thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies failed and others settled lawsuits with large sums of money. However lawsuits and other investigations revealed an enormous amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The lawsuits that followed led to the conviction of many individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
In a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to fraudulently defraud defendants and to drain bankruptcy trusts. His “estimation ruling” dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.
For instance, he discovered that in one case a lawyer told the jury that the client was exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence showed the possibility of a wider range of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers fabricated claims, concealed information and even created fake evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.
Other judges have since observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, though not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimates of how much asbestos victims owe companies.
The Second Case
The negligence of businesses that manufactured and sold asbestos products has resulted in the emergence mesothelioma that has affected thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. The victims often receive a substantial amount of compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive 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 responsible for his injuries since they failed to inform him of the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. They did this by hiring suspicious “experts” to conduct research and then publish papers that would help them argue their case in court. They also employed their resources to to influence public perceptions of the truth about the health risks of asbestos.
One of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow the families of victims to take on multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. This method, though it may be helpful in certain circumstances, it can cause confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to search for legal rulings that can help them limit the scope of their liability. They are trying to get judges to accept that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that jurors may award. This is an extremely important issue because it will impact the amount a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma cases increased in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was previously used in a variety of construction materials. Workers with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.
The mesothelioma latency time is lengthy, which means that patients don't exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related illnesses because of its lengthy latency period. Asbestos is a hazard and businesses that use it often conceal their use.
A number of asbestos firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the raging litigation over mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to regroup under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover current and future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases.
But this also led to an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured, but were used together with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) provides a good example of this argument.
In the 1980s, and into the 1990s, New York was home to a number of major asbestos trials, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the chief counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, helped to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the adoption of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was another significant development in asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in asbestos lawsuits be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of relying on speculation or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, and the passage of other reforms similar to them, effectively squelched the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As the asbestos companies ran out of defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims, they began to attack their opponents the lawyers who represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs look guilty. This is a shady method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This method has proven to be very efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult a reputable law firm as soon as is possible. Even if you don't think that you have mesothelioma experienced firm can find evidence and build a strong claim.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by different litigants. First, there were those exposed in the workplace who sued companies that mined and made asbestos-related products. Then, those exposed in private or public buildings sued their employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses, sue suppliers of asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using asbestos, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos firms in Texas specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and bringing cases to court in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It became famous for its secret method of instructing clients to focus on particular defendants and filing cases with little regard for accuracy. This practice of “junk science” in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts and legislative remedies were enacted which helped to stop the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation for their losses, which includes medical costs. To ensure that Tacoma asbestos lawyer receive the amount of compensation you are entitled, you should contact a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as soon as you can. A lawyer will review the facts of your case, determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.