Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through an intricate procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.

Companies that produce hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos attorneys-containing items.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling this hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits could compensate victims for various injuries that result from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include amount of money for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on where you live the victim may also be awarded punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings for years numerous manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The massive demand for asbestos was driven primarily by the need for durable and cheap construction materials to accommodate population growth. 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 were faced with thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large amounts of money. But lawsuits and investigations found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in many frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of many individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled 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 used by lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.

For instance, he found that in one case, an attorney claimed that the jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence pointed to an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys used false claims, concealed information and even fabricated evidence to gain asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.

Other judges have noted dubious legal maneuvering in asbestos cases, although not at the level of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimates of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.

The Second Case

The negligence of businesses that manufactured and sold asbestos-related products has resulted in the development mesothelioma that has affected thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. Victims typically receive substantial compensation.

The first asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis after working as an insulation worker for 33 years. The court held asbestos-containing insulation producers responsible 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 ending in verdicts or awards for victims.

Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation increased. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and produce papers that could support their arguments in court. They also employed their resources to to distort public perceptions of the facts about the asbestos's health risks.

Class action lawsuits are one of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow victims and their families to take on multiple defendants at one time rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain instances, it could cause a lot of confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. The courts have also ruled against class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.

Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to seek legal rulings that will aid them in limiting the extent of their liability. They are trying to convince judges to accept that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also are trying to limit the types of damages that juries can decide to award. This is an extremely important issue, since it will impact the amount of money the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases began appearing on the court docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies used to make a variety of construction materials. Workers with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.

The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, meaning that people don't usually exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related diseases. Additionally, the businesses who used asbestos typically covered up their use of the substance because they knew that it was dangerous.

The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put money aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers and other asbestos-related illnesses.

This prompted defendants to seek legal decisions that will limit their liability in 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 subsequently purchased. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.

A series of large asbestos trials that were consolidated, 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 attorneys served as the lead counsel in these cases as well as other major asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped to reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings for companies involved in the litigation.

Another significant development in asbestos litigation came with the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required the evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or suppositions made by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively put out the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos lawyers companies exhausted their defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began to attack their adversaries lawyers representing them. The goal of this strategy is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful method to distract attention from the fact asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This strategy has been very efficient, and that is why people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult with an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you aren't sure you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.

In the beginning of asbestos litigation, there was a wide range of legal claims brought by various litigants. Workers who were exposed at work filed lawsuits against firms that mined or made asbestos products. Another class of litigants included those exposed at home or in public structures seeking compensation from property owners and employers. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases suing distributors of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects that used asbestos, and many other parties.

Texas was the scene of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies in Texas were experts in promoting asbestos cases and bringing them to court in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to select specific defendants and to file cases without regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and enacted legislative remedies to quell the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims are entitled to an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, including the cost of medical care. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to make sure you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can analyze your particular situation, determine whether you have a mesothelioma claim that is viable and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos firms that hurt you.