Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are handled in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.
Companies that manufacture hazardous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies who mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing substances.
The First Case
One of the earliest asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of the construction industry named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can compensate victims for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. The compensation can consist of a cash amount for pain and discomfort and lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Depending on where you reside the victim may also be awarded punitive damages to punish the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers continued to employ asbestos in a range of products across the United States. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 tonnes. The massive consumption of asbestos was driven by the need for low-cost and robust construction materials to support the increasing population. The demand for cheap mass-produced products made from asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers were facing thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. However, investigations and lawsuits found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing many frauds and corrupt practices. The litigation that followed led to the conviction 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 swindle clients and rob bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
Hodges found, for instance that in one instance the lawyer told jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence showed a larger scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys made up claims, concealed information, and even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.
Other judges have observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, though not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe to 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 lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive significant compensation for their loss.
The first asbestos lawsuit to get a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from asbestosis and mesothelioma after working as an insulator for 33 years. The court determined that the producers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries since they failed to inform him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in verdicts or awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liability as asbestos litigation grew. They did this by paying suspicious "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would assist them to make their arguments in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the facts about the asbestos's health risks.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most alarming trends when it comes to asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow victims and their families to sue multiple defendants at once instead of filing individual lawsuits against each company. This tactic, while it could be beneficial in certain cases, could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. Additionally the courts have a long track record of denying asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Asbestos defendants are also using a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held responsible. They also want to limit the types damages that jurors can award. This is an extremely important issue because it will impact the amount of money the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases started to increase on the court docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was a mineral often used in construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.
The mesothelioma latency time 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 diseases. Asbestos is a dangerous material and companies that make use of it frequently cover up their use.
Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to regroup 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 compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings that would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have attempted to claim that their products weren't made with asbestos-containing materials but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials later 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 leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation major in New York. Lawrence asbestos lawsuits consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passage 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, not conjecture or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively put out the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began to attack their opponents attorneys who represent them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous designed to divert attention away 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 why those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out an experienced firm as soon as possible. Even if you do not believe you have mesothelioma-related cancer, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can find evidence of your exposure and help build a solid case.
In the beginning, asbestos litigation was characterized by a variety of legal claims. Workers exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. Another class of litigants included those who were exposed at home or in public structures who sued employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses sued distributors of asbestos-containing materials, manufacturers of protective gear as well as banks that financed 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 Texas were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and bringing them to court in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to focus on specific defendants and for filing cases with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies that helped to stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos victims deserve an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, which includes medical expenses. To ensure you receive the amount of compensation you are entitled, you should seek out a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as soon as possible. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice.