Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve a significant number of claims at once.
Companies that manufacture dangerous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies that mine, mill or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing items.
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 inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. The compensation can consist of a monetary amount for discomfort and pain, lost earnings, medical costs as well as property damage. Based on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongful actions.
Despite warnings throughout the years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos in the world was more than 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for sturdy and affordable building materials to keep pace with population growth. Increasing demand for inexpensive asbestos products, which were mass-produced, helped to fuel the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits using large sums of money. However the lawsuits and other investigations showed a massive amount of fraud and corruption by plaintiff's attorneys and asbestos companies. The litigation that followed led to the conviction of many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical structure of limestone situated on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and drain trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face 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, when the evidence suggested a far greater range of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers used false assertions, concealed information and even fabricated evidence to gain asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Since then, other judges have noted some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits, but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations about fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimations of the amount asbestos victims owe businesses.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases because of the negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos suits have been filed both in state and federal courts. Victims often receive substantial compensation.
Longview asbestos attorneys was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries as they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in awards or verdicts for victims.
As asbestos litigation grew and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the cases were trying to find ways to limit their liability. They did this by paying suspicious "experts" to conduct research and then publish papers that would assist them to make their arguments in the courtroom. They also utilized their resources to skew the public perception about the truth regarding the health risks of asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain instances, it could cause a lot of confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. Additionally, the courts have a long tradition of denying class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.
Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that assist them in limiting the scope of their liabilities. They are attempting to get judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages a judge may award. This is an extremely important issue because it will affect the amount of money an asbestos victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma cases began to increase 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 companies who exposed them to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with long periods of latency that means that people don't often show signs of the disease until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related ailments. Additionally, the businesses who used asbestos often covered up their use of the material because they knew it was dangerous.
Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy because of the mesothelioma litigation lawsuits. This allowed them to regroup under the supervision of the courts and set 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 also triggered an attempt by defendants to get 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 subsequently purchased. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) provides a good example of this argument.
A number of massive consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, occurred in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were combined into one trial, slowed the number of asbestos lawsuits, and provided significant savings to companies involved in litigation.
In 2005, the adoption of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an important development in asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or suppositions made by an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, in conjunction with the passage of similar reforms, effectively put out the litigation raging.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against lawsuits filed on behalf victims, they began attacking their opponents attorneys who represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a shady method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This strategy has been very effective, and it is the reason people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out an experienced firm as soon as possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest you have mesothelioma, an expert firm will be able to find evidence to support a claim.
In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a wide range of legal claims brought by different litigants. First, there were workers exposed in the workplace who sued businesses that mined and produced asbestos products. Another group of litigants included those who were exposed at home or in public buildings seeking compensation from property owners and employers. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses sued distributors of asbestos-containing materials and manufacturers of protective gear and banks that funded asbestos projects, as well as numerous other parties.
Texas was the location of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in the state specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and bringing them to court in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms that became famous for its unique method of coaching clients to target specific defendants and for filing cases without regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and instituted legislative remedies that helped to end the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation for their losses, which includes medical expenses. To ensure you get the compensation you have a right to, consult with an experienced firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can analyze the facts of your case and determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and assist you in pursuing justice.