Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a major role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims all at once.
The law requires manufacturers of dangerous products to warn consumers of the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mine, mill or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can compensate victims for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. The compensation can consist of a monetary amount for discomfort and pain as well as loss of earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. Depending on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the need for sturdy and inexpensive construction materials to accommodate population growth. The demand for low-cost manufactured products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing numerous 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 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 drain trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.
He found, for example in one instance, an attorney claimed to jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence showed a broader scope of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, hid information, and even created fake evidence to obtain asbestos victims' settlements.
Other judges have also discovered legal evasions in asbestos cases, but not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that continuing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimates of how much asbestos victims owe companies.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos products has resulted in the emergence mesothelioma that has affected thousands of Americans. Asbestos suits have been filed in state and federal courts. Victims typically receive a substantial amount of compensation.
The first asbestos lawsuit to win a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis after working as an insulator for 33 years. The court held asbestos-containing insulation producers responsible for his injuries as they did not warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of future asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in awards or verdicts for victims.
While asbestos litigation was growing in the industry, many of the companies involved in the cases were trying to find ways to limit their liability. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write documents that would support their arguments in court. These companies also utilized their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth regarding asbestos's health hazards.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to take on multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain cases, can create confusion and take away time from asbestos victims. In addition, the courts have a long tradition of refusing class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.
Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to get judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held liable. They also want to limit the types damages that a juror may award. This is a crucial issue since it could affect the amount of money the victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases began appearing on the court docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos which was once used in many construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers have filed lawsuits against the companies that exposed them to asbestos.
The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, which means that patients don't typically show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is a hazardous material and businesses that use it frequently cover up their use.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize in an unsupervised court proceeding and set funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers and other asbestos-related diseases.
This also triggered an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured, but were used together with asbestos material that was later purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) provides a good example of this argument.
In the average asbestos settlement amount 1980s and 1990s, New York was home to a series of large asbestos trials, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, helped reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to the 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 another significant development in asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in a lawsuit involving asbestos be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than on conjecture and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their adversaries - the lawyers that represent them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This tactic is that is designed to distract attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma that followed.
This method has proven to be extremely efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you do not think you have mesothelioma An experienced firm with the appropriate resources can find evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by different types of litigants. There were first, workers exposed at work suing companies that mined and made asbestos products. Second, those who were exposed in private or public buildings sued employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma and various asbestos-related illnesses sued suppliers of asbestos-containing products and manufacturers of protective gear as well as banks that financed asbestos projects, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation was in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and bringing them to trial in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms that was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to target specific defendants and for filing cases without regard to accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts, and legislative remedies were enacted that slowed the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims need an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, including medical expenses. To ensure you get the compensation you are entitled, consult with an experienced firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.