Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled by a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.
The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies that mine, mill or manufacture asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several manufacturers of asbestos insulation products did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing in the dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits could provide victims with compensation for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of cash amount for discomfort and pain and loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damages. In Norwalk asbestos lawsuit of a location, victims could also be awarded punitive damages meant to penalize companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for many years and despite warnings from the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos across the world surpassed 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the need for sturdy and inexpensive building materials to accommodate population growth. The demand for low-cost mass-produced products made from asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers were faced with thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits with large sums of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations revealed an enormous amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The resulting litigation led to the convictions of a variety of 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 defraud clients and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.
He found, for example that in one instance the lawyer told a jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence suggested a far larger scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers created false claims, hid information, and even fabricated proof to get asbestos victims settlements.
Since then other judges have also noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will lead to more accurate estimates of how much companies owe asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments because of the negligence of businesses that manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed both in federal and state courts. Victims typically receive substantial compensation.
The first asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from asbestosis and mesothelioma while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court ruled that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were responsible for his injuries since they did not inform him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. They did this by hiring suspicious "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would help them argue their case in court. These companies also used their resources to alter the public's perception of the truth regarding the health risks of asbestos.
One of the most troubling developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to sue multiple defendants at once instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. While this tactic can be beneficial in certain situations, it can lead to a lot of confusion and waste of time for asbestos victims and their families. The courts have also rejected class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying get judges to agree only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also want to limit the types damages that jurors can award. This is a significant issue as it will impact the amount of money that the victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The mesothelioma-related lawsuits began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was often used in construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.
Mesothelioma is a disease with a long latency period which means that patients do not typically show signs of the illness until decades after being exposed 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 often cover up their use.
The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits led to a variety asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to organize themselves in an unsupervised court proceeding and set funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
This prompted defendants to seek legal decisions that will limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured, but were used together with asbestos material that was later purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) provides a good example of this argument.
A string of large-scale consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the chief counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided 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 step in the asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required that the evidence presented in asbestos lawsuits be based on peer-reviewed scientific research, rather than on conjecture or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, in conjunction with the passing of other similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As the asbestos companies ran out of defenses to the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their opponents and the lawyers that represent them. The aim of this tactic is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This method has proven to be extremely effective, and this is the reason why those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can find evidence and build a strong claim.
In the beginning, asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad variety of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work filed lawsuits against businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. Another group of litigants comprised those who were exposed at home or in public structures who sued employers and property owners. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, sued companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using asbestos and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation was in Texas. Asbestos companies in Texas specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and taking them to court in large numbers. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of coaching its clients to focus on particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and instituted legislative remedies that helped to end the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims need an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, including medical costs. To ensure that you receive the amount of compensation you have a right to, seek out a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer will review the facts of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.