Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complex process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims in one go.

Manufacturers of hazardous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that mill, mine, or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits could compensate victims for different injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include amount of money for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on where you live, victims can also receive punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongdoing.

Despite numerous warnings, many manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. By 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven by the need for affordable and durable construction materials to accommodate the growing population. The demand for cheap, mass-produced products made of asbestos fueled the rapid growth of mining and manufacturing industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits with large amounts of cash. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in a large amount of fraud and corrupt practices. The litigation that followed led to the conviction of many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).

In a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.

For instance, he found that in one case, the lawyer claimed to a jury his client had only been exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence suggested a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers made up assertions, concealed information and even invented evidence to get asbestos victims the settlements they wanted.

Since since then, other judges have noted the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits, but not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations about fraud and abuse in asbes.

Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held liable. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages a judge may award. This is a crucial issue since it could affect the amount of money that a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The mesothelioma-related lawsuits increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure, a mineral that was often used in construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma centered on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

The mesothelioma latency time 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. Asbestos is a hazard and businesses that use it often conceal their use.

Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the mesothelioma litigation lawsuits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover the future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related illnesses.

This led defendants to seek legal decisions that will limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, a few defendants have attempted to argue that their products weren't made with asbestos-containing materials but were simply used in conjunction with asbestos-containing 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 series of large asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into one trial, slowed the number of asbestos lawsuits, and also resulted in significant savings to companies involved in litigation.

Another key change in asbestos litigation occurred through the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms to the law required the evidence used in a lawsuit involving asbestos lawyer be based on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of relying on speculation and supposition from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of other similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation raging.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began attacking their opponents - lawyers who represent them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This tactic is intended to deflect attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos attorney exposure and the mesothelioma which followed.

This strategy has proven to be extremely effective. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if it isn't clear that you believe you have mesothelioma-related cancer An experienced firm with the right resources can provide evidence of exposure and help build a solid case.

In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a range of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued companies that mined or manufactured asbestos-related products. Another class of litigants included those who were exposed at the home or in public buildings suing property owners and employers. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma and various asbestos-related illnesses sued asbestos-containing material distributors as well as manufacturers of protective gear as well as banks that financed asbestos projects, as well as many other parties.

Texas was the scene of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and provoking them in large quantities. Baron & Budd was one of these firms that became famous for its unique method of coaching clients to focus on specific defendants and to file cases without regard to accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts and legislative remedies were put in place that helped douse the litigation raging.

Asbestos victims need fair compensation for their losses, which includes medical costs. To ensure you receive the amount of compensation you are entitled, consult with an experienced firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice.