Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.
The law requires companies that manufacture hazardous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly applicable to companies that mill, mine or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can provide victims with compensation for different injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include monetary value for suffering and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for many years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the global 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 in order to keep pace with population growth. Increasing demand for inexpensive, mass-produced asbestos products contributed to the rapid expansion of the manufacturing and mining industries.
By the year 1980, asbestos companies faced a plethora of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. However the 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 convictions of many individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a Neoclassical building made of limestone situated 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.
Hodges found, for instance in one instance, an attorney claimed to the jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence indicated a much greater range of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers created false claims, hid information, and even made up evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.
Since the time other judges have also noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits, but not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more precise estimates of the amount companies owe asbestos victims.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos products has led to the development of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos suits have been filed in state and federal courts. Victims typically receive substantial compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. Greenville asbestos lawyers was diagnosed with mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court ruled that the makers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries due to the fact that they failed to warn him about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling could open the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in awards or verdicts for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation grew. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who weren't credible enough to conduct research and write documents to justify their claims in court. They also employed their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the real asbestos's health risks.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow the families of victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. This tactic, while it can be beneficial in certain situations, it can cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.
Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to search for legal rulings that can assist them in limiting the scope of their liabilities. They are attempting to get judges to accept that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held liable. They also are trying to limit the types of damages that a jury can award. This is an important issue because it will affect the amount of money that victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma lawsuits increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies once used in various construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, which means that people don't usually develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. Additionally, the companies who used asbestos often did not disclose their use of asbestos because they knew it was a risk.
The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits resulted in a number of asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize themselves 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 to pay victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
But this also triggered an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have tried to argue that their products weren't made of asbestos-containing material but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were subsequently purchased by defendants. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good example of this argument.
In the 1980s, and into the 1990s, New York was home to a variety of significant 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 as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
Another important development in asbestos litigation came with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition from an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, as well as the passage of similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As the asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their opponents and the lawyers who represent them. The aim of this tactic is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous that is designed to distract focus from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
This strategy has been very efficient, and that is the reason people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should speak with a reputable firm as soon as possible. Even if you don't believe you are mesothelioma An expert firm with the right resources can locate evidence of exposure and help build a solid case.
In the early days of asbestos litigation, there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by different types of litigants. First, there were those exposed in the workplace who sued companies that mined and made asbestos products. Then, those exposed in public or private buildings sued their employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against asbestos-containing material distributors as well as manufacturers of protective equipment and banks that funded asbestos projects, as well as many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms in Texas were experts in promoting 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 instructing clients to select particular defendants and filing cases with little regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by the courts and legislative remedies were implemented that slowed the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including medical treatment costs. To ensure you get the compensation you are entitled, seek out a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer will review the facts of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice.