Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have been a major part of asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims at one time.
The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to inform consumers of the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mill, mine, or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers did not warn workers of the risks of inhaling the dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a wide range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. The compensation can consist of a cash amount for discomfort and pain and lost earnings, medical costs and property damage. In the case of a area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to penalize companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite numerous warnings, many manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products in the United States. By 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the requirement for durable and affordable construction materials in order to keep pace with population growth. The demand for low-cost mass-produced products made from asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers faced a plethora of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits using large sums of cash. However, lawsuits and other investigations revealed an enormous amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's lawyers and asbestos companies. The resulting litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a limestone building that was built in the Neoclassical style located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme used by lawyers to fraudulently defraud defendants and to drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
He found, for example, that in one case a lawyer claimed to the jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence suggested a far greater range of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information, and even fabricated proof to obtain asbestos victims' settlements.
Other judges have since noted dubious legal maneuvering in asbestos cases, although not at the level of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies who produced and sold asbestos-related products has resulted in the emergence mesothelioma that has affected thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed both in state and federal courts. Victims typically receive substantial 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 held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries as they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation grew. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write papers that could support their arguments in court. These companies also utilized their resources to try and skew the public perception about the truth about the health risks of asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most alarming trends when it comes to asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to sue multiple defendants at once rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. While this strategy can be beneficial in certain cases, it can result in a lot confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. Additionally the courts have a long track record of denying asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to search for legal rulings that lawsuit asbestos can assist them in limiting the extent of their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also would like to limit the types of damages a judge may award. This is a very important issue because it will affect the amount of money the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma lawsuits increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies used to make a variety of construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers filed lawsuits against companies who exposed them to asbestos.
Mesothelioma sufferers have long periods of latency which means that patients do not typically show signs of the disease until years after exposure to the material. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. Additionally, the businesses that used asbestos frequently did not disclose their use of the substance because they knew it was a risk.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a variety asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize themselves in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put 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.
This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings which could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. This argument is clearly illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A string of large-scale consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that occurred in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as leading counsel in these cases as well as other major asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made with the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or supposition by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of similar reforms, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against the lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began attacking their adversaries - lawyers who represent them. This tactic is designed to make the plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This tactic is that is designed to distract attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma which followed.
This method has proven to be extremely effective, and this is the reason why those who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should seek out an experienced firm as soon as possible. Even if you don't think you have a mesothelioma case An experienced firm with the right resources can locate evidence of your exposure and create a convincing case.
In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a wide range of legal claims. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace who sued companies that mined and made asbestos products. Another group of litigants comprised those who were exposed at home or in public buildings who sued property owners and employers. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against distributors of asbestos-containing materials, manufacturers of protective gear as well as banks that financed asbestos projects, and numerous other parties.
Texas was the scene of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies were experts in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and fomenting them in huge quantities. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It became famous for its secret method of instructing clients to target specific defendants and to file cases with no regard for accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by courts and legislative remedies were implemented that helped douse the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation for their losses, including medical costs. To ensure you receive the amount of compensation you are entitled, consult with an experienced firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can review your personal circumstances and determine if you're in a mesothelioma claim that is viable and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos-related companies that have harmed you.