10 Things Everybody Has To Say About Asbestos Lawsuit

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won, more asbestos disease compensation cases than any other law firm. This has been a tremendously important part of our history.

A 1973 court ruling sparked an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos exposure lawsuit settlements-related story began in a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to record legal history, but it was exactly the case in 1973. A retired judge was able discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law, which states that any company can be held responsible for any injury caused by a product if it knew or should be aware of the dangers of its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, studies showed that asbestos was harmful and could cause lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied these risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had developed more accurate tests to confirm the link between asbestos and illness. This resulted in a dramatic rise in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case that gained significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. It was filed in 1969 and decided in 1973.

This case set the precedent for many other asbestos cases that would follow. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal doctrine of strict liability. Plaintiffs didn't have to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could also sue multiple manufacturers simultaneously.

Texas was the next state that reached a major milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005 the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. The law required that mesothelioma and other asbestos cases be determined by peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of supposition and conjecture from hired gun experts. This was a major change in the law and has helped reduce the rumblings of asbestos litigation.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of several plaintiffs lawyers and their companies under RICO. This is a federal law designed to catch those who are involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort hide evidence, handle veterans asbestos lawsuits waste, conceal documents and other similar strategies. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants as well as claimants.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos lawyer lawsuit manufacturers knowing the dangers of their products for decades and decades, they put profits over safety. Workers were bribed into keeping quiet about asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims received damages when the truth was finally disclosed.

In 1973, a single case set off a blaze of litigation throughout the United States. In the three decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas the state that has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held liable for damages if they negligently exposed someone to asbestos and that those exposed to asbestos developed an disease. This case shifted asbestos litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the actions of the company. It set the stage for mass torts that continue to this day.

The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their full damages from only one employer instead of several. Insurers realized the potential of a legal method to limit asbestos exposure and began using strategies to limit it.

In order to reduce liability, these cynical strategies include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue the presence of asbestos in the air didn't constitute negligence, since exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. In some cases these cases, the plaintiffs are suing the use of talcum powder, which is a source of asbestos fibers naturally occurring in the environment. These cases often involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma due to their use of talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

In the last quarter of 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested a judge to reveal the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman hoped the testimony would provide some insight into Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence plan. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation firestorm raged on for many years. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because the asbestos companies were headquartered in Texas.

The defendants fought back the plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and publish papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated employees, offering them small amounts to keep their health concerns secret and asbestos lawsuits urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies were effective for a short period of time. The truth was exposed in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos producers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma and other diseases.

By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients they accepted. Kazan Law focused on a smaller portion of workers who were seriously ill who had medical evidence of asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They won a number important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn referred not just to certain products but to industrial premises in which asbestos was present. It was later upheld in the case of Jeromson v. Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

Many of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This allowed them to organize in court and set money aside to cover future asbestos-related liabilities. However the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies are still paying asbestos-related damages to the present.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure, it was enough to prove that the victim worked at a site where asbestos was used. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products plaintiffs' lawyers. This new rule was the reason for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

After Clarence Borel's victory, more asbestos victims were able to win their lawsuits. But asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy was to challenge the evidence of victims. They claimed that the diseases of victims were caused by multiple asbestos exposures from a variety of employers, and not only one exposure. This was due to the fact that companies employed asbestos in a range of their products, and each product had its own unique asbestos exposure risks. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma victims' rights because they were required to list all asbestos-exposured employers.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount awarded asbestos victims was too high and insufficient to the injuries each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and physical damages. This was a major problem for the insurance industry, as every company was obliged to pay large amounts of money to asbestos sufferers, even if they were not the cause of their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurers also attempted to restrict the rights of asbestos victims to claim compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to damages that went beyond the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they developed their mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence demonstrated that there was no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms typically develop 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a secret coaching method to help their clients target specific defendants. Many times asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trial. An asbestos settlement is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company to settle the legal claim to compensation. It can be reached before, during or after a trial, and is not subject to the same conditions as a jury verdict.