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 number of claims at once.
Companies that produce hazardous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing items.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos, a dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensation for various injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of sum of money to ease pain and discomfort as well as loss of earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. In the case of a location, victims could also be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 tonnes. The massive consumption of asbestos was driven by the need for low-cost and robust construction materials to support population growth. Increasing demand for inexpensive asbestos products, which were mass-produced, contributed to the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy and others settled lawsuits using large amounts of cash. However lawsuits and other investigations showed a huge amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's lawyers and asbestos companies. The resulting litigation led to the conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical building of limestone located on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and deplete trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.
Hodges discovered, for instance, that in one case an attorney claimed to jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence indicated a much larger scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys made up claims, concealed information, and even faked evidence to obtain asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Other judges have observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, although not at the level of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe asbestos victims.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products has resulted in 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.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma after a period of 33 years working as an insulation worker. Lafayette asbestos attorneys held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries because they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation grew. This was done by paying "experts" who were not reputable to conduct research and write papers that would support their arguments in court. These companies also used their resources to skew the public perception 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 permit victims and their families to pursue multiple defendants at the same time rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain cases, can cause confusion and delay 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 employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that will help them limit the extent of their liability. They are trying to get judges to agree that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They also want to limit the types of damages a jury can decide to award. This is an important issue because it will affect the amount of money a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma cases increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies used to make various construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them to asbestos.
Mesothelioma sufferers have long periods of latency, meaning people do not often show signs of the disease until years after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related illnesses due to its long time of latency. In addition, the companies who used asbestos typically did not disclose their use of the material because they knew it was a risk.
The litigation firestorm over mesothelioma lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing 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 pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this also led to an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured but were used in conjunction with asbestos material that was later purchased. 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 that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials which took place in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these cases as well as other asbestos litigations that were major in New York. The consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the adoption of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an important step in the asbestos litigation. These reforms to the law required the evidence used in a lawsuit involving asbestos be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than based on speculation or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, and the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began to attack their opponents lawyers representing them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a dishonest tactic to divert attention away from the fact asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This method has proven to be extremely effective, and this is the reason why those who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should seek out an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if it isn't clear that you believe you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can locate evidence of your exposure and create a convincing case.
In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad variety of legal claims filed by different litigants. Workers exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos products. Then, those exposed in private or public buildings sued their employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases, sued distributors of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects using asbestos, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and provoking them in large numbers. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of coaching its clients to select specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and implemented legislative remedies to end the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims deserve fair compensation for their losses, including medical costs. To ensure you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, you should contact a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can analyze the facts of your case and determine if there is an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.