Three Greatest Moments In Asbestos Lawsuit History History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled by a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in consolidated asbestos trials in New York, which resolve several claims at once.
The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to inform consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing substances.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can compensate victims for different injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. The compensation can consist of a cash amount for pain and discomfort as well as loss of earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. Based on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages meant to penalize companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite years of warnings, many companies continued to use asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 tonnes. This enormous consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and robust construction materials to support population growth. Growing demand for low-cost asbestos products, which were mass-produced, helped to fuel the rapid expansion of the manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos companies and plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing many frauds and corrupt practices. The lawsuits that followed led to convictions of many individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical building 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 face of asbestos lawsuits.
For instance, he found that in one instance, the lawyer claimed to the jury that his client had only been exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence suggested an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to get asbestos victims the settlements they wanted.
Other judges have also discovered legal evasions in asbestos cases, but not as extensive as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimates of how much asbestos victims owe companies.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos-related products has led to the development mesothelioma among thousands of Americans. Asbestos suits have been filed in state and federal courts. Victims typically receive a substantial amount of compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries, because they did not warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.
As asbestos litigation grew in the industry, many of the companies involved in the litigation were trying to find ways to reduce their liability. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write papers to support their arguments in court. They also employed their resources to to influence public perceptions of the truth about the health risks of asbestos.
One of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy could be beneficial in certain circumstances, it could cause confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. Additionally the courts have a long history of denying asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are attempting to get judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They also are trying to limit the types of damages that a jury can award. This is a very important issue, since it will affect the amount a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos attorney which was a mineral previously used in a variety of construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers have filed lawsuits against the companies that exposed them to asbestos.
The latency period for mesothelioma is long, which means that patients don't show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. Asbestos is a dangerous material, and companies that use it often conceal their use.
Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy because of the raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have attempted to claim that their products were not made from asbestos lawyer-containing materials, but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials that were subsequently purchased by defendants. This argument is well-executed 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 occurred in New York in the 1980s and the 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the chief counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits and also resulted in significant savings for companies involved in litigation.
Another key change in asbestos litigation occurred through the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms to the law required the evidence used in an asbestos lawsuit be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than based on speculation and supposition from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively squelched the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims they began to attack their adversaries and the lawyers who represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs look guilty. This is a dishonest method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This approach has proven effective, and this is why people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you do not believe you are a mesothelioma case An experienced firm with the appropriate resources can provide evidence of exposure and create a convincing case.
In the beginning, asbestos litigation was characterized by a variety of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos products. Another class of litigants consisted of those exposed at the home or in public buildings seeking compensation from property owners and employers. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases sued suppliers of asbestos-containing products and manufacturers of protective equipment as well as banks that financed asbestos-related projects, and numerous other parties.
Texas was the scene of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies in Texas were experts in promoting asbestos cases and bringing the cases to court in large numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of instructing its clients to focus on particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk with little regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts and legislative remedies were put in place which helped to stop the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including for medical expenses. To ensure you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, seek out a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer can analyze your personal circumstances, determine whether you have an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and help you seek justice against asbestos-related firms that hurt you.