Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled through a complicated process. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a major role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.
Companies that manufacture hazardous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies that manufacture, mill or mine asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
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 producers failed to warn workers of the dangers of breathing in this hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensation damages for a range of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of sum of money for discomfort and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses and property damage. In the case of a jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.
Despite years of warnings, many companies continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos around the world surpassed 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the requirement for durable and inexpensive construction materials to support the growth of population. Growing demand for low-cost asbestos products, which were mass-produced, contributed to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industry.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large amounts of money. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in many frauds and corrupt practices. The subsequent litigation resulted in convictions for a number of individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical structure of limestone located on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to swindle clients and rob bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.
He found, for example that in one instance an attorney claimed to a jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence indicated a much broader scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys made up claims, concealed information and even fabricated evidence to gain asbestos victims the settlements they wanted.
Other judges have also observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, although not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will lead to more accurate estimates of how much companies owe to asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases due to the negligence of businesses that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive significant compensation for their loss.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma following 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 opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in verdicts or awards for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. They did this by paying shady "experts" to conduct research and publish documents that would allow them to present their arguments in the courtroom. These companies also utilized their resources to try and skew the public perception about the truth about asbestos's health risks.
One of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. While this strategy could be beneficial in certain circumstances, it can create confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos-related class action lawsuits as a result of cases in the past.
Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can assist them in limiting the scope of their liabilities. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also want to limit the types of damages that juries can decide to award. This is a significant issue as it will impact the amount of money that victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma cases began to increase in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies used to make various construction materials. The lawsuits brought by those who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
The latency period for mesothelioma is long, which means that people don't usually exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related illnesses because of its lengthy period of latency. Asbestos is a dangerous material, and companies that use it frequently cover up their use.
Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the raging litigation over mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reform under the supervision of a court and put funds aside to cover the future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients as well as other asbestos-related diseases.
This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings that could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have attempted to argue that their products were not made of asbestos-containing material but were used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials later purchased by defendants. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good example of this argument.
A string of large-scale asbestos trials, consolidated into the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings for companies involved in litigation.
Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made through the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in an asbestos lawsuit be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than based on speculation and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passage of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against lawsuits filed on behalf victims, they began to attack their opponents - lawyers who represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a dishonest tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This strategy has proven be very efficient. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out a reputable firm as soon as is possible. Even if you don't think you're suffering from mesothelioma expert firm will be able to find evidence and make a convincing claim.
In the beginning, asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. Workers exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. In the second, those exposed in public or private structures sued employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases filed suit against asbestos-containing material distributors as well as manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed asbestos projects, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms in the state specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and taking cases to court in huge numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of educating its clients to select particular 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 put in place that helped douse the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including for medical treatment costs. To ensure St. George asbestos lawyers get the compensation you have a right to, consult with an experienced firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer will review the facts of your case, determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and assist you in pursuing justice.