10 Things Competitors Teach You About Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complex procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in asbestos-related trials that are consolidated in New York that resolve a variety of claims all at one time.

The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to inform consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mine, mill or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos, a dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits may award victims compensation for different injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include cash value for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages in order to punish the company for its wrongdoing.

Despite warnings for years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos in the world exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and durable construction materials to accommodate the increasing population. The demand for inexpensive manufactured products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of manufacturing and mining industries.

By the year 1980, asbestos attorney companies faced a plethora of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt and others settled lawsuits with large sums of money. However lawsuits and other investigations revealed an enormous amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's attorneys and asbestos companies. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled 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 defraud clients and rob bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.

He found, for example in one instance, a lawyer claimed to a jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence indicated a much larger scope of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information and even fabricated proof to get asbestos victims settlements.

Since then other judges have also observed some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits however not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will lead to more accurate estimates of how much companies owe asbestos victims.

The Second Case

The negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos-related products has led to the development mesothelioma among thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their injuries.

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries as they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in awards or verdicts for victims.

Many companies were looking for ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation grew. They did this by paying untruthful "experts" to conduct research and publish documents that would allow them to make their arguments in court. They also used their resources to to influence public perceptions of the truth about the asbestos's health risks.

Class action lawsuits are one of the most troubling developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit victims to sue several defendants at once instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy may be helpful in some instances, it could lead to a lot of confusion and time wastage for asbestos victims and their families. The courts have also rejected asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.

Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that assist them in limiting the scope of their liabilities. They are trying to get judges to agree that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are trying to limit the types of damages that juries are able to decide to award. This is a very important issue because it will affect the amount of money an asbestos victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The number of mesothelioma lawsuits began to increase in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral many companies used to make a variety of construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them to asbestos.

The mesothelioma latency time is long, meaning that patients don't develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. Asbestos is a dangerous material and businesses that use it often cover up their use.

The litigation firestorm over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a variety of asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize in an unsupervised court proceeding and set funds aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to compensate mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.

This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings which 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 used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials that were later purchased by defendants. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

A string of large-scale asbestos trials, consolidated into the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that took place in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these cases as well as other major asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings for companies involved in the litigation.

Another significant development in asbestos litigation came through the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required that the evidence in asbestos lawsuits be based on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of relying on speculation or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passage of other reforms similar to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

As the asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims, they began to attack their adversaries - the lawyers they represent. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a dishonest method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This strategy has proven to be very efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult a reputable law firm as quickly as possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can provide evidence and make a convincing claim.

In the early days of asbestos Lawyers litigation there was a wide range of legal claims brought by different litigants. First, there were workers exposed at work suing businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos products. Another group of litigants included those who were exposed at home or in public structures who sued property owners and employers. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases suing suppliers of asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks who financed projects that used asbestos, and numerous other parties.

Texas was the site of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in the state specialized in fomenting asbestos attorneys cases and taking the cases to court in large numbers. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of coaching its clients to select specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk with no 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 firestorm.

Asbestos sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, which includes the cost of medical treatment. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure that you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can review your personal circumstances and determine if you're in an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos firms that hurt you.