Guide To Asbestos Lawsuit History: The Intermediate Guide Towards Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are handled by an intricate process. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a major role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York that resolve a variety of claims all at one time.

Manufacturers of dangerous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies who mill, mine, or manufacture asbestos or asbestos lawyers-containing substances.

The First Case

One of the earliest asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by an employee of the construction industry named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several manufacturers of asbestos insulation products did not adequately warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos, a hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits may award victims compensation for various injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of monetary amount for discomfort and pain and lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damages. Based on where you live, victims can also receive punitive damages in order to punish the company for their wrongful actions.

Despite years of warnings numerous manufacturers continued to employ asbestos in a range of products in the United States. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos around the world surpassed 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the requirement for durable and inexpensive building materials to keep pace with population growth. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products led to the rapid expansion of the manufacturing and mining industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were facing thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations showed a massive amount of corruption and fraud by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The resultant litigation led to the conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

In a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.

Hodges discovered, for instance in one instance, a lawyer claimed to jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence showed a larger scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys created false claims, concealed information and even fabricated evidence to gain asbestos victims the settlements they sought.

Since the time, other judges have noted some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits, but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the continuing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.

The Second Case

The negligence of companies who produced and sold asbestos-related products has led to the development of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive substantial compensation for their loss.

The first asbestos lawsuit to get a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis after working as an insulator for 33 years. 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 the door for other asbestos lawsuits to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.

While asbestos litigation was on the rise and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the cases were trying to find ways to reduce their liability. They did this by hiring untruthful "experts" to conduct research and publish papers that would assist them to make their arguments in court. They also used their resources to try to distort public perceptions of the real health risks of asbestos.

One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit 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 cases, can cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. In addition, the courts have a long tradition of refusing class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that a juror can award. This is a very important issue because it will affect the amount a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The mesothelioma-related lawsuits increased in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease develops after exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies used to make a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

Mesothelioma is a disease with long periods of latency, meaning people do not often show signs of the illness until decades after being exposed to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos attorney-related ailments. Asbestos is a hazardous material, and companies that use it often conceal their use.

The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a variety asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to organize themselves in a court-supervised proceeding and put money aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.

But this also triggered an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products weren't made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.

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 attorneys served as the lead counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were merged into one trial, slowed the number of asbestos lawsuits, and resulted in significant savings to companies involved in litigation.

In 2005, the passage of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was another important development in asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or supposition from an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, and the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively put out the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began to attack their adversaries lawyers representing them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a shady method to distract attention from the fact asbestos companies were responsible asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This method has proven to be extremely efficient, and that is the reason people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you do not think you have mesothelioma-related cancer, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can find evidence of exposure and create a convincing case.

In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad variety of legal claims. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace suing businesses that mined and produced asbestos-related products. Another class of litigants consisted of those who were exposed at home or in public buildings seeking compensation from employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases suing suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using asbestos, and numerous other parties.

Texas was the scene of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in the state specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and bringing the cases to court in large numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of educating its clients to focus on specific defendants and filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts, and legislative remedies were enacted that slowed the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims need fair compensation for their losses, including medical expenses. To ensure you get the compensation you have a right to, contact a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as soon as possible. A lawyer can review the facts of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma claim and help you pursue justice.