20 Tools That Will Make You More Efficient At Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are handled in a complicated way. 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.
Companies that manufacture dangerous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that manufacture, mill or mine asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by an employee of the construction industry named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers did not adequately warn workers about the dangers of breathing in the hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can compensate victims for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensation damages could include monetary value for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. In the case of a location, victims could 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 across the world was more than 109,000 metric tons. The massive consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for low-cost and durable construction materials to accommodate the increasing population. Increasing demand for inexpensive asbestos products, which were mass-produced, contributed to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industry.
In the year 1980, asbestos companies faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies failed and others settled lawsuits for large amounts of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations revealed a massive amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's lawyers and asbestos companies. The subsequent litigation led to convictions for many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme used by lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.
For instance, he found that in one case a lawyer told a jury his client had only been exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence pointed to the possibility of a wider range of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to gain asbestos victims the compensation they sought.
Since then other judges have also observed questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits however not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will lead to more precise estimates of the amount companies owe asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments due to the negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts. Victims typically receive substantial compensation.
The first asbestos-related lawsuit to receive a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis after working as an insulator for 33 years. The court found that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were responsible for his injuries due to the fact that they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were looking for ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. They did this by paying shady "experts" to conduct research and publish documents that would allow them to present their arguments in the courtroom. These companies also used their resources to try and alter the public's perception of the truth regarding asbestos's health risks.
One of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims sue several defendants at once instead of filing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it may be helpful in certain cases, could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. In addition, the courts have a long track record of denying asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that assist them in limiting the extent of their liability. They are trying to get judges to accept that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also are trying to limit the types of damages that a jury can award. This is a significant issue since it could affect the amount of money that the 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 many companies once used in a variety of construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies that exposed them to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with a long latency period, meaning people do not often show signs of the illness until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related diseases. Additionally, the companies who used asbestos often did not disclose their use of the material because they knew that it was dangerous.
A few asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the mesothelioma litigation suits. 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 victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
This led defendants to seek legal decisions that would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos materials 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 variety of significant 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 and other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were combined into one trial, slowed the number of asbestos lawsuits and also resulted in significant savings for 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 in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, and the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims, they began to attack their opponents the lawyers who represent them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic designed to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that followed.
This method has proven to be very effective. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out a reputable firm as quickly as possible. Even if you don't believe you are mesothelioma, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can provide evidence of exposure and create a convincing case.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a wide range of legal claims brought by different types of litigants. Workers who were exposed at work filed lawsuits against businesses that mined or produced asbestos products. Another class of litigants consisted of those exposed at home or in public buildings who sued property owners and employers. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases sued asbestos-containing material distributors as well as manufacturers of protective gear and banks that funded asbestos-related projects, and many other parties.
Texas was the location of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies in Texas were specialized in bringing 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 target specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually rebuked this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and enacted legislative remedies that helped to quell the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, which includes the cost of medical treatment. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure you receive the compensation you're entitled to. Costa Mesa asbestos lawyers will review your particular situation, determine whether you have an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and help you pursue justice against the asbestos companies that harmed you.