Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of asbestos-related trials that are consolidated in New York that resolve a variety of claims all at once.
Companies that manufacture hazardous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies who mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing substances.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing in this hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits may compensate victims for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensatory damages may include cash value for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for many years and despite warnings from the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and robust construction materials to support the growing population. Increasing demand for inexpensive asbestos products, which were mass-produced, helped to fuel the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits with large amounts of cash. However lawsuits and other investigations have revealed a huge amount of corruption and fraud by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The litigation that followed resulted in convictions for a number of individuals under 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" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
Hodges found, for instance that in one instance an attorney claimed to jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence suggested a far larger scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to get asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Other judges have noted dubious legal maneuvering in asbestos cases, though not as extensive as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that continuing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimations of the amount asbestos victims owe businesses.
The Second Case
Thousands of 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 both in state and federal courts. Victims typically receive substantial compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after a period of 33 years working as an insulation worker. The court held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries as they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to win verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. This was done by paying "experts" who were not reputable to conduct research and write papers to be used in court to support their arguments. They also used their resources to try to distort public perceptions of the real health risks of asbestos.
One of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. This tactic, while it can be beneficial in certain cases, can cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to search for legal rulings that aid them in limiting the extent of their liability. They are trying to convince 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 very important issue because it will impact the amount of money an asbestos victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the late 1960s mesothelioma cases started to increase on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies once used in a variety of construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against companies that exposed them 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 win than other asbestos-related illnesses. Asbestos is a dangerous material, and companies that use it often cover up their use.
A number of asbestos firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to regroup under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover the future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related illnesses.
But this also led to an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. This argument is well-executed 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 series of large asbestos trials, such as 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 trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings for businesses involved in litigation.
Another significant development in asbestos litigation came through the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required that the evidence in a lawsuit involving asbestos 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 similar reforms to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As the asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits brought by victims, they began to attack their adversaries the lawyers that represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This tactic is that is designed to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
This strategy has proven be extremely effective. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult an experienced firm as quickly as possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest you have mesothelioma, an expert firm will be able to find evidence and build a strong claim.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation, there was a wide range of legal claims brought by various litigants. Workers exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos products. A second group of litigants included those who were exposed at the home or in public buildings who sued employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses, sue suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using asbestos and numerous other parties.
Arvada asbestos attorneys of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms in Texas were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and bringing the cases to court in large numbers. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of coaching its clients to select specific defendants and filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and implemented legislative remedies that helped to stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, which includes the cost of medical treatment. To ensure you get the compensation you are entitled, consult with an experienced firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can analyze the circumstances of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma claim and assist you in pursuing justice.