Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through an intricate procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York that resolve a variety of claims all at one time.
The law requires manufacturers of dangerous products to inform consumers of the dangers. This is especially true for companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Bethlehem asbestos lawsuit claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits could award victims compensation for different injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensatory damages can include a cash value for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. In the case of a area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite years of warnings numerous manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos around the world was more than 109,000 metric tonnes. The massive demand for asbestos was primarily driven by the need for durable and cheap building materials to support the growth of population. The demand for cheap mass-produced products made from asbestos fueled the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
By the 1980s, asbestos producers were facing thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large amounts of money. However, investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The subsequent litigation led to the conviction of many individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical building of limestone located on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and drain trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.
Hodges discovered, for instance, that in one case a lawyer claimed to jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a greater range of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false assertions, concealed information and even faked evidence to get asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.
Since since then other judges have also noted the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe asbestos victims.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos products has resulted in the development of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos suits have been filed 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 after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court held asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries as they did not warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened up the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits being successful and ending in settlements or awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liability as asbestos litigation grew. They did this by paying suspicious "experts" to conduct research and then publish papers that would help them argue their case in court. They also utilized their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth about asbestos's health hazards.
One of the most disturbing developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow the families of victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain circumstances, it could cause confusion and take away time from asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to get judges to agree that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also would like to limit the types of damages that a juror may award. This is a significant issue since it could affect the amount of money a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The mesothelioma-related lawsuits increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that was once used in many construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with long periods of latency which means that patients do not often show signs of the disease until years after being exposed to the material. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related diseases. In addition, the companies who used asbestos often covered up their use of asbestos because they knew it was dangerous.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a number asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize in an unsupervised court proceeding and set money aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this has also led to a desire by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For example, some defendants have tried to argue that their products weren't made of asbestos-containing material but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were later purchased by the defendants. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
In the 1980s, and 1990s, New York was home to a number of major asbestos trials, including 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. The consolidated trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and also resulted in significant savings for businesses 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 significant development in 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 an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, as well as the passage of similar reforms to them, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began attacking their opponents attorneys who represent them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic that is designed to distract attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma that followed.
This strategy has proven be very efficient. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult a reputable law firm as soon as is possible. Even if you don't think you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can provide evidence and build a strong claim.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a broad variety of legal claims filed by various litigants. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace suing businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos products. Another class of litigants comprised those exposed at home or in public structures suing property owners and employers. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases, sued companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects using asbestos and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation was in Texas. Asbestos firms specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and provoking them in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to focus on specific defendants and to file cases with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and implemented legislative remedies to stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos victims are entitled to an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, including the cost of medical care. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you have a right to, contact a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as soon as possible. A lawyer can analyze your particular situation and determine if you're in a mesothelioma claim that is viable and help you seek justice against asbestos-related companies that have harmed you.