Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are handled in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have been a major part of asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.
Companies that produce hazardous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies who mine, mill or manufacture asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a variety of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of monetary amount for discomfort and pain as well as loss of earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. Based on the location, victims could also be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for many years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 tonnes. This massive consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for sturdy and inexpensive construction materials to accommodate population growth. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products contributed to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits using large sums of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations showed a massive amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The litigation that followed led to the conviction of many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 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 of lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.
He found, for example that in one instance an attorney claimed to the jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a larger scope of exposure. Hodges also found that lawyers created false assertions, concealed information and even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.
Since the time other judges have also observed the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits, but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more precise estimates of the amount companies owe asbestos victims.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products has led to the development of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive substantial compensation for their losses.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries, because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in verdicts or awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation increased. This was done by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write papers to justify their claims in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to distort public perceptions of the truth about the asbestos's health risks.
One of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims pursue multiple defendants at the same time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain cases, can create confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants are also using a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying get judges to agree only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held accountable. They also want to limit the types damages that a juror may award. This is an extremely important issue, as it will affect the amount the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma lawsuits began to increase in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos which was a mineral once used in many construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
The latency period for mesothelioma is long, meaning that patients don't typically show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. Asbestos is a hazard, and companies that use it often conceal their use.
A number of asbestos companies declared bankruptcy due to the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of a court and put funds aside to cover the future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
But this also led to an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos materials which was later 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 number of major asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigation major in New York. The consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings for companies involved in litigation.
Another key change in asbestos litigation occurred through the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required that the evidence presented in a lawsuit involving asbestos be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of relying on speculation and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passage of similar reforms, effectively quelled the litigation raging.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against lawsuits filed on behalf victims, they began to attack their opponents lawyers representing them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic designed to divert attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
This method has proven to be very efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult an experienced firm as quickly as possible. Even if you don't believe you have a mesothelioma case An experienced firm with the right resources can locate evidence of exposure and create a convincing case.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation, there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by various litigants. Workers exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos products. Another group of litigants comprised those who were exposed at the home or in public buildings seeking compensation from property owners and employers. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any baron and budd asbestos settlement other asbestos-related diseases suing companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects that used asbestos, and numerous other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and provoking them in large quantities. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was known for its secret method of instructing its clients to target specific defendants and filing cases in bulk, with no regard to accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts and legislative remedies were implemented which helped to stop the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims deserve fair compensation for their losses, including 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 a valid mesothelioma claim and help you pursue justice.