Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are handled in a complicated manner. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of asbestos-related trials that are consolidated in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.
The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to inform consumers of the dangers. This is particularly true for companies that 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 suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several manufacturers of asbestos insulation products did not adequately warn workers about the dangers of breathing in asbestos, a hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits may award victims compensation for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages can include a amount of money for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. In the case of a location, victims could also be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their actions.
Despite warnings for many years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The massive consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for low-cost and robust construction materials to support the increasing population. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products contributed to the rapid expansion of the manufacturing and mining industries.
By the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos companies and plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing a large amount of fraud and corrupt practices. The resulting litigation led to the conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 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 used by lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.
For instance, he found that in one case the lawyer claimed to a jury his client was exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence suggested a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Since then other judges have also noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits, but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that continuing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimates of how much asbestos victims owe companies.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases due to the negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not unusual 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 held asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits in the future to win verdicts and awards 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 paying suspicious "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would assist them to present their arguments in the courtroom. These companies also used their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth regarding the health risks of asbestos.
One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow victims and their families to sue multiple defendants at once rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. While this strategy could be beneficial in certain cases, it can cause a lot of confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. In addition the courts have a long tradition of refusing asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are attempting to get judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held responsible. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that a juror can award. This is a very important issue, as it will affect the amount of money an asbestos victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease develops after exposure to asbestos, a mineral many companies used to use in a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma has a long latency period that means that people don't usually show symptoms of the disease until many years after exposure to the material. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is a dangerous material and companies that make use of it often cover up their use.
A few asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the mesothelioma litigation suits. This allowed them to reform under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Long Beach asbestos attorneys like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to pay victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings which would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured but were used together with asbestos material that was later purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.
A series of large consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that took place in New York in the 1980s and the 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passage of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was another important step in the asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
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 purpose of this tactic is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous intended to deflect focus from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and the mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
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 it isn't clear that you believe you are mesothelioma-related cancer An expert firm with the right resources can find evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation, there was a wide range of legal claims brought by different litigants. Workers who were exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos products. Another class of litigants consisted of those who were exposed at home or in public buildings who sued property owners and employers. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, sued companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using 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. Baron & Budd was one of these firms that became famous for its secret method of instructing clients to target specific defendants and for filing cases without regard to accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts, and legislative remedies were implemented that slowed the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including medical treatment costs. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, contact a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer will review your particular situation, determine whether you have a viable mesothelioma case and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos-related companies that harmed you.