12 Facts About Asbestos Lawsuit History To Make You Seek Out Other People
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complex process. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a major role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.
The law requires companies that produce hazardous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies who mine, mill or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing items.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by an employee of the construction industry named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include cash value for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on where you reside victims may also receive punitive damages in order to punish the company for their wrongful actions.
Despite warnings for many years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos across the world exceeded 109,000 metric tonnes. The massive consumption of asbestos was driven by the need for affordable and durable construction materials to accommodate the growing population. The demand for inexpensive, mass-produced products made of asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
By the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were facing thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large amounts of money. But lawsuits and investigations found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing numerous frauds and corrupt practices. Lake Forest asbestos lawyers resulted in convictions for a number of individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical limestone building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme used by lawyers to fraudulently defraud defendants and to drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.
Hodges discovered, for instance that in one instance a lawyer claimed to the jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence showed a broader scope of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information, and even made up evidence to obtain asbestos victims' settlements.
Since the time, other judges have noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments because of the negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos suits have been filed in state and federal courts. The victims often receive a substantial amount of compensation.
The first asbestos lawsuit to get a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries, because they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened 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 litigation were trying to find ways to limit their liability. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who weren't credible enough to conduct research and write documents that could support their arguments in court. They also used their resources to to influence public perceptions of the truth about the 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, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it could be beneficial in certain cases, can cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected asbestos-related class action lawsuits as a result of cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are attempting to get judges to decide that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are trying to limit the types of damages that a jury can award. This is an extremely important issue, as it will affect the amount of money a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma cases increased in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was often used in construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them 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. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. Asbestos is a hazard, and companies that use it often conceal their use.
The litigation firestorm over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a variety asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to pay victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
But this also triggered an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured but were used together with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. This argument is clearly illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
In the 1980s and into the 1990s, New York was home to a series of large asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the chief counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings for companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passing 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 the evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or suppositions made by an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, and the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively put out 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 adversaries and the lawyers that represent them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a dishonest 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 the reason why those who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should consult with an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you don't believe you have a mesothelioma case An expert firm with the right resources can provide evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a wide range of legal claims brought by various litigants. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. Second, those who were exposed in private or public buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against distributors of asbestos-containing materials as well as manufacturers of protective gear and banks that funded asbestos-related projects, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and provoking them in huge numbers. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of educating its clients to select particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by courts and legislative remedies were enacted which helped to stop the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including the cost of medical treatment. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to make sure you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case and determine if there is an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.