Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complicated manner. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims all at once.
Manufacturers of hazardous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that mill, mine, or manufacture 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 failed to warn workers of the risks of inhaling asbestos, a dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensation damages for a wide range of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Compensation damages could include amount of money for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their actions.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products in the United States. By 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The massive consumption of asbestos was driven by the need for low-cost and durable construction materials to accommodate the growing population. Increasing Mesquite asbestos lawyers for inexpensive asbestos products that were mass-produced helped to fuel the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industry.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers were faced with thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy and others settled lawsuits with large sums of cash. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The lawsuits that followed led to convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.
For instance, he found that in one case the lawyer claimed to the jury that the client was only exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence showed a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers used false claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to get asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Since then other judges have also observed questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations about fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments due to the negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive substantial compensation for their injuries.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation producers responsible for his injuries as they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to win verdicts and awards for victims.
While asbestos litigation was growing, many of the companies 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 employed their resources to try to distort public perceptions of the truth about the asbestos's health hazards.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit victims and their families to sue multiple defendants at once instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. While this approach may be helpful in some situations, it can result in a lot confusion and waste of time for asbestos victims and their families. The courts have also ruled against asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to seek legal rulings that can aid them in limiting the scope of their liability. They are trying to get judges to agree that only the producers 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 crucial issue because it will impact the amount 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 many companies used to make a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits brought by those who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, meaning that patients don't typically develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma can be more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of its lengthy time of latency. In addition, the companies that used asbestos frequently did not disclose their use of the material because they knew it was a risk.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a variety of asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize themselves in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put money aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
This led defendants to seek legal decisions that would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. For instance, a few defendants have tried to argue that their products weren't made from asbestos-containing materials, but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials that were subsequently purchased by the defendants. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) provides a good example of this argument.
In the 1980s, and into the 1990s, New York was home to a variety of significant asbestos trials, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the chief counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passing of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an significant development in asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or supposition by an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, as well as the passing of other similar reforms, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits brought by victims they began to attack their opponents and the lawyers who represent them. The purpose of this tactic is to make the plaintiffs look guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic designed to divert focus from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
This strategy has proven to be extremely effective. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult a reputable law firm as soon as they can. Even if you aren't sure you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can provide evidence and make a convincing claim.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by different litigants. First, there were workers exposed at work suing businesses that mined and produced asbestos-related products. Second, those who were exposed in private or public structures sued employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases sued suppliers of asbestos-containing products as well as manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed asbestos-related projects, and numerous other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos firms specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and bringing them to trial in large quantities. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It became famous for its secret method of coaching clients to focus on specific defendants and for filing cases with little regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was later rescinded by courts and legislative remedies were implemented that helped douse the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including for medical treatment costs. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can analyze the facts of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.