10 Things We All Do Not Like About Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled through an intricate process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.
The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to inform consumers of the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers failed to warn workers of the risks of inhaling this hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits may compensate victims for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensation damages could include cash value for suffering and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for many years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos around the world surpassed 109,000 metric tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the need for durable and inexpensive construction materials in order to support the growth of population. The demand for inexpensive, mass-produced products made of asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy and others settled lawsuits with large sums of cash. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in many frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical building of limestone on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and deplete trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the face of asbestos lawsuits.
Hodges discovered, for instance, that in one case an attorney claimed to the jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a greater range of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys created false claims, concealed information, and even invented evidence to gain asbestos victims the settlements they sought.
Other judges have since discovered legal evasions in asbestos cases, though not at the level 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
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses due to the negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive substantial compensation for their injuries.
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 held asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and ending in verdicts or awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation increased. This was done by paying "experts" who weren't credible enough to conduct research and write papers to justify their claims in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the truth about the asbestos's health risks.
One of the most disturbing trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow the families of victims to take on multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. This tactic, while it may be helpful in certain circumstances, it can cause confusion and take away time from asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.
Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to seek legal rulings that will assist them in limiting the scope of their liabilities. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also want to limit the types damages a judge may award. This is a very important issue because it will affect the amount the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases began appearing on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies used to make a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma centered on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
The mesothelioma latency time is lengthy, which means that patients don't typically exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. Asbestos is a hazard and businesses that use it often cover up their use.
Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to regroup under the supervision of a court and put funds aside to cover the current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers as well as other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Savannah asbestos attorney , for example, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized together with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. 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 number of major asbestos trials, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the leading counsel in these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to 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 another important step in the asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required the evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or suppositions made by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, in conjunction with the passing of similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation raging.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against the lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began to attack their opponents attorneys who represent them. The aim of this tactic is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This tactic is intended to deflect attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
This approach has proven efficient, and that is why people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should speak with a reputable firm as soon as they can. Even if you do not believe you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm with the right resources can provide evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.
In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a wide range of legal claims brought by different types of litigants. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. A second group of litigants comprised those who were exposed at the home or in public buildings who sued property owners and employers. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases sued distributors of asbestos-containing materials, manufacturers of protective gear, banks that financed asbestos-related projects, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms were specialized in bringing asbestos cases to court and provoking them in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to focus on specific defendants and for filing cases with no regard for accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by the courts, and legislative remedies were implemented that slowed the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, which includes medical treatment costs. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure that you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer will review your particular situation and determine if you have a viable mesothelioma case and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos-related firms that hurt you.
