20 Myths About Asbestos Lawsuit History: Busted

Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are handled through a complex process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims at one time.

Companies that manufacture hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies who manufacture, mill or mine asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. 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 wide range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damage can include a sum of money to ease pain and discomfort, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damages. In the case of a area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their actions.

Despite warnings for years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for sturdy and inexpensive construction materials in order to keep pace with population growth. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products helped to fuel the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industry.

In the 1980s, asbestos producers were faced with thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt and others settled lawsuits for large sums of money. However, investigations and lawsuits found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).

In a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the landscape of asbestos lawsuits.

For example, he found that in one instance, the lawyer claimed to a jury his client was only exposed to Garlock's products but the evidence showed an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys used false claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to get asbestos victims the compensation they wanted.

Other judges have since observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, although not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos lawyers claims will result in 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 illnesses because of the negligence of businesses that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive substantial compensation for their loss.

The first asbestos lawsuit to get 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 found that the producers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries because they did not inform him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.

As asbestos litigation grew and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the litigation were looking for ways to minimize their liability. This was done by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and produce papers that would be used in court to support their arguments. They also employed their resources to try to skew public perception of the real health risks of asbestos.

One of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims pursue multiple defendants at the same time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy may be helpful in certain circumstances, it can create confusion and delay for asbestos victims. In addition, the courts have a long tradition of denying class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can help them limit the scope of their liability. They are trying get judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They also want to limit the types damages that a juror can award. This is an extremely important issue, since it will impact the amount of money a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s mesothelioma cases began appearing on the court docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos which was previously used in a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits brought by those who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, meaning that patients don't typically exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related diseases due to its long latency period. Asbestos is a dangerous material, and companies that use it often conceal their use.

A few asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.

This also led to an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have attempted to argue that their products were not made from asbestos-containing materials, but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were subsequently purchased by the 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, like the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these cases as well as other major asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.

Another significant advancement in asbestos litigation was made through the adoption 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 a hired gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of other similar reforms, effectively put out the litigation raging.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos lawyer companies ran out defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began to attack their adversaries lawyers representing them. This strategy is designed to make the plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a dishonest tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This strategy has proven to be extremely efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you don't think that you have mesothelioma experienced firm can find evidence and build a strong claim.

In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by different litigants. First, there were those exposed in the workplace who sued businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos-related products. In the second, those exposed in public or private structures sued employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases suing suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects that used asbestos, and numerous other parties.

Texas was the scene of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and provoking them in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to target particular defendants and filing cases without regard to accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by courts and legislative remedies were implemented that helped douse the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, which includes medical expenses. Contact a reputable law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can review the facts of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.