Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through an intricate procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a major role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.
The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to inform consumers of the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies who mine, mill or manufacture asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed 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 can award victims compensation damages for a wide range of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include amount of money for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.
Despite years of warnings, many companies continued to use asbestos in a variety of products in the United States. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos around the world exceeded 109,000 metric tons. This enormous consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for low-cost and durable construction materials to meet the increasing population. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products led to the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers were faced with thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits with huge amounts of cash. However lawsuits and other investigations have revealed a huge 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 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical limestone building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the landscape of asbestos lawsuits.
Hodges found, for instance, that in one case an attorney claimed to jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence indicated a much larger scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false claims, concealed information, and even invented evidence to get asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Since then other judges have also observed the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits however not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will lead to 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 ailments because of the negligence of companies who produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed both in federal and state courts. Victims typically receive a substantial amount of compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. 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 the door for asbestos lawsuits in the future to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to limit their liability as asbestos litigation increased. They did this by hiring shady "experts" to conduct research and then publish documents that would allow them to make their arguments in the courtroom. These companies also used their resources to influence public opinion about the truth regarding asbestos's health risks.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to sue multiple defendants at once instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. While this approach can be beneficial in certain instances, it could lead to a lot of confusion and time wastage for asbestos victims and their families. The courts have also ruled against class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.
Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can help them limit the scope of their liability. They are attempting to get judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held responsible. They are also trying to limit the types of damages juries can decide to award. This is a crucial issue, since it will impact the amount 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 develops after exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies once used in a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits brought by those suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, which means that people don't usually exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is a hazard, and companies that use it frequently cover up their use.
A few asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to regroup under court supervision and set funds aside to cover current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
But this also triggered an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For Mission asbestos attorney , some defendants have attempted to argue that their products were not made of asbestos-containing material but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were subsequently purchased by the defendants. This argument is well-executed in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
In the 1980s, and 1990s, New York was home to a variety of significant asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were merged into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to companies involved in litigation.
In 2005, the adoption of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was another important development in asbestos litigation. These reforms to the law required the evidence presented in an asbestos lawsuit be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of relying on speculation or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passage of similar reforms, effectively put out the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against lawsuits filed on behalf victims, they began attacking their adversaries lawyers representing them. The goal of this strategy is to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a dishonest strategy to distract attention from the fact asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This strategy has been very effective, and this is the reason why those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you don't think you have mesothelioma-related cancer An expert firm with the right resources can locate evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.
In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by various litigants. First, there were those exposed at work suing companies that mined and made asbestos-related products. Another group of litigants consisted of those exposed at 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, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed asbestos projects, and numerous other parties.
Texas was the location of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in the state were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and bringing the cases to court in large numbers. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was known for its secret method of instructing its clients to target specific defendants and filing cases in bulk, with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and enacted legislative remedies to quell the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including for medical expenses. Contact a reputable law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to make sure you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can review your particular situation, determine whether you have a mesothelioma claim that is viable and help you pursue justice against asbestos firms that hurt you.