15 Terms Everybody In The Asbestos Lawsuit History Industry Should Know

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 have been consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims in one go.

Manufacturers of dangerous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies that mill, mine, or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

One of the earliest asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits could award victims compensation for different injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include monetary value for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.

Despite numerous warnings, many manufacturers continued to use asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos in the world surpassed 109,000 metric tons. The massive consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for low-cost and durable construction materials to meet the growing population. The demand for cheap, mass-produced products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced a plethora of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits using large sums of cash. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The lawsuits that followed led to convictions of many 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 defraud 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, whereas the evidence indicated a much larger scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers fabricated claims, hid information, and even created fake evidence to get asbestos victims settlements.

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

The Second Case

The negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos-related products has resulted in the development mesothelioma among thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their loss.

The first asbestos-related lawsuit to receive a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis after working as an insulator for 33 years. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries as they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and ending in verdicts or awards for victims.

While asbestos litigation was growing and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the cases were looking for ways to reduce their liability. They did this by paying shady "experts" to conduct research and then publish papers that would assist them to present their arguments in court.  Naperville asbestos lawyers  used their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth about asbestos's health hazards.

Class action lawsuits are one of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain situations, it can cause confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. In addition, the courts have a long track record of rejecting class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can aid them in limiting the scope of their liability. 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 that jurors may award. This is a crucial issue because it will affect the amount of money victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases started to increase on the court docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was a mineral once used in many construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against companies that exposed them to asbestos.

The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, meaning that patients don't typically show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. Asbestos is a hazardous material and businesses that use it frequently cover up their use.

The litigation firestorm over mesothelioma lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize themselves in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.

But this also led to an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that could restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For example, some defendants have attempted to argue that their products weren't made of asbestos-containing material but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials that were later purchased by the defendants. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) provides a good example of this argument.

In the 1980s and 1990s, New York was home to a variety of significant asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were combined into one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits, and resulted in significant savings to companies involved in litigation.

Another key change in asbestos litigation occurred through the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or suppositions made by an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively squelched the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As the asbestos companies ran out of defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims they began to attack their opponents - the lawyers that represent them. The aim of this tactic is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This approach has proven efficient, and that is why people who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should speak with a reputable firm as soon as they can. Even if you do not believe you are a mesothelioma case, an expert firm with the right resources can find evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.

In the early days asbestos litigation was characterized by a range of legal claims. Workers exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. Another group of litigants included those who were exposed at home or in public structures seeking compensation from property owners and employers. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases, sued companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks who financed projects using asbestos and many other parties.

Texas was the site of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in Texas were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and taking cases to court in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms that became famous for its unique method of coaching clients to focus on particular defendants and filing cases with no regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by courts and legislative remedies were implemented which helped to stop the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including the cost of medical treatment. To ensure you receive the amount of compensation you have a right to, contact a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can review your particular situation, determine whether you have a viable mesothelioma case and help you seek justice against asbestos companies that have harmed you.