Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complex procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have been a major part of asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.
The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies that manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing items.
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 inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a range of injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. The compensation can consist of a monetary amount to ease pain and discomfort and lost earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. Depending on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite numerous warnings numerous manufacturers continued to use asbestos in a variety of products in the United States. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos around the world was more than 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the need for durable and inexpensive building materials to support the growth of population. The growing demand for cheap, mass-produced asbestos products contributed to the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industry.
By the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers faced a plethora of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations have revealed an enormous amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced 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 drain trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the face of asbestos lawsuits.
He found, for example in one instance, a lawyer claimed to the jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence showed a greater range of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys used false claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to gain asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Since then, other judges have noted some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits but not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that continuing revelations about fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.
Orlando asbestos lawsuits of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products has resulted in the emergence mesothelioma among thousands of Americans. Asbestos suits have been filed in state and federal courts. Victims typically receive a substantial amount of compensation.
The first asbestos lawsuit to get a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis after working as an insulator for 33 years. The court found that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were responsible for his injuries because they did not inform him of the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling opened the door for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation grew. They did this by hiring untruthful "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would help them argue their case in court. They also employed their resources to to distort public perceptions of the truth about the health risks of asbestos.
One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this approach could be beneficial in certain instances, it could result in a lot confusion and time wastage for asbestos victims and their families. The courts have also ruled against asbestos-related class action lawsuits as a result of cases in the past.
Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can help them limit the scope of their liabilities. They are trying to get judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held liable. They are also trying to limit the types of damages juries are able to decide to award. This is a crucial issue since it could affect the amount of money a victim will receive 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 exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies once used in a variety of construction materials. Workers with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them to asbestos.
The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, which means that people don't usually show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of this long time of latency. In addition, the companies who used asbestos often concealed their use of the material because they knew that it was dangerous.
A number of asbestos companies declared bankruptcy because of the raging litigation over mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of a court and put funds aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to pay victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this also triggered an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For example, some defendants have attempted to claim that their products weren't made from asbestos-containing materials, but were simply used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials later purchased by the defendants. This argument is clearly illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A string of large-scale asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials which were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.
Another significant change in asbestos litigation occurred through the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. 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, along with the passage of other reforms similar to them, effectively squelched the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out defenses against the lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began attacking their opponents lawyers representing them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a shady tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This strategy has been very effective, and this is the reason people who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should seek out an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if it isn't clear that you think you have a mesothelioma case, an experienced firm with the right resources can find evidence of exposure and create a convincing case.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation, there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by different litigants. First, there were workers exposed at work suing businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos-related products. Another class of litigants comprised those exposed at home or in public structures who sued property owners and employers. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses, sue companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects that used asbestos, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms specialized in taking asbestos cases to court and fomenting them in huge quantities. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It became famous for its unique method of coaching clients to focus on specific defendants and to file cases without regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies to quell the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims need an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, which includes medical costs. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to make sure you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer will review your particular situation, determine whether you have a mesothelioma claim that is viable and assist you in pursuing justice against the asbestos firms that hurt you.