Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos suits are handled in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in consolidated asbestos trials in New York, which resolve a significant number of claims at one time.

Companies that manufacture hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant 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 lawsuits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a variety of injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. The compensation can consist of a monetary amount to ease pain and discomfort, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damages. In the case of a jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.

Despite warnings throughout the years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos around the world was more than 109,000 metric tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the requirement for durable and cheap building materials to support the growth of population. The demand for inexpensive mass-produced products made from asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies failed and others settled lawsuits for large sums of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations showed a huge amount of corruption and fraud by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The lawsuits that followed led to conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).

In a Neoclassical building made of limestone located on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to swindle clients and deplete trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the landscape of asbestos lawsuits.

Hodges discovered, for instance, that in one case 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 lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to get asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.

Other judges have observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, but not at the level of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the continuing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of the amount asbestos victims owe companies.

The Second Case

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

The first asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis after working as an insulation worker for 33 years. The court determined that the producers of asbestos-containing insulation were responsible for his injuries since they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to win verdicts and awards for victims.

Many companies were looking for ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation increased. This was done by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write papers that could justify their claims in court. They also used their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the real health risks of asbestos.

class action lawsuit asbestos exposure action lawsuits are one of the most troubling developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits let victims sue several defendants at once instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy may be helpful in certain circumstances, it could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against class action lawsuits for asbestos lawsuit attorney cases in the past.

Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to search for legal rulings that can help them limit the scope of their liability. They are trying get judges to agree only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also would like to limit the types of damages that a juror may award. This is a crucial issue since it could affect the amount of money victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The number of mesothelioma cases increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure, a mineral that was often used in construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

Mesothelioma is a disease with a long latency period, meaning people do not often show signs of the illness until decades after exposure to the material. Mesothelioma is more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related illnesses due to its long latency period. Asbestos is a hazardous material, and companies that use it often conceal their use.

Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of a court and put money aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related illnesses.

This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings which would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, Cancer for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured, but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials which was later purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good example of this argument.

A series of large asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigations that were major in New York. The consolidated trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were merged into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits, and resulted in significant savings for businesses involved in litigation.

Another significant change in asbestos litigation occurred with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required the evidence in asbestos cancer lawyer mesothelioma settlement lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation raging.

The Fourth Case

As the asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims, they began to attack their adversaries the lawyers that represent them. The aim of this tactic is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful tactic to divert attention away from the fact asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This strategy has been very efficient, and that is the reason why those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should speak with a reputable firm as soon as possible. Even if you do not believe you are mesothelioma-related cancer, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can provide evidence of your exposure and help build a solid case.

In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a broad variety of legal claims filed by different litigants. Workers who were exposed at work filed lawsuits against firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. A second group of litigants consisted of those who were exposed at home or in public structures who sued property owners and employers. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases suing distributors of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects using asbestos and many other parties.

Texas was the site of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and bringing them to trial in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which became famous for its unique method of coaching clients to focus on specific defendants and to file cases without regard to accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was later rescinded by the courts and legislative remedies were put in place that helped douse the litigation firestorm.

asbestos lawsuit settlements taxable sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, including for medical expenses. To ensure you receive the amount of compensation you are entitled, you should consult with an experienced firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer will review the circumstances of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma claim and help you pursue justice.