5 Common Phrases About Asbestos Lawsuit You Should Avoid

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won, more asbestos disease compensation claims than any other law firm. This has been an important part of our past.

Following a 1973 court decision a firestorm of asbestos lawsuits was sparked. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of uninjured plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973, a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District became the location of a landmark legal landmark. A retired judge was able discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits are rooted in the law of tort which states that a seller or manufacturer of any product may be held liable for any harm caused by the product if the manufacturer knew or should have known about the danger of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated asbestos was a danger and could be linked to lung disease like asbestosis but also to a rare cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had created more precise tests that confirmed the link between asbestos and illness. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to gain significant legal recognition. It was filed in 1969, and decided in 1973.

This case was a precedent for many other asbestos cases to follow. This was the first case in which courts ruled asbestos producers guilty of strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove the companies acted negligently as it allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at the same time.

Texas was the next state to reach a major milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005 the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, and not speculation or suppositions made by hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law and has helped to reduce the rumblings of asbestos litigation.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs lawyers and their firms, under RICO. This is a federal statute that was created to catch those who are involved in organized crime. A concerted effort to hide evidence, evade and dispose of asbestos waste, conceal documents, Asbestos lawyer lawsuit and other similar methods have been exposed by courts, resulting in several RICO convictions for both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to remain quiet about asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims were awarded compensation when the truth was exposed.

In 1973, a single case ignited a firestorm of litigation throughout the United States. In the years that followed, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of these asbestos lawsuits were brought in Texas which has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos lawyer lawsuit defendants could be held accountable for damages when they negligently exposed someone to asbestos, and those persons developed an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the actions of the company and set the stage for the mass tort system that is still in place to this day.

The case also set a new standard for asbestos victims, which allowed them to claim full damages from just one of their employers instead of several. Insurance companies recognized the benefits of a legal method to limit asbestos class action lawsuit settlement exposure and began to use tactics to limit the exposure.

These cynical tactics included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to limit their liability. They also began to argue the mere presence asbestos in the air does not constitute negligence, since exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues and there are new asbestos cases filed every year. The claims often involve talcum, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after using talcum powder during the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court release Budd's transcript of his deposition testimony about the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman was hoping that the testimony would shed some light on Budd and Baron's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy. However, the trial court denied her request.

The Third Case

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

The defendants fought back the plaintiffs' claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also manipulate employees by paying small amounts to keep their health concerns quiet and encouraging them to sign confidentiality contracts.

These tactics worked for a while. But the truth came out in the late 1970s when lawyers representing victims came out with the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Asbestos producers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma asbestos lawsuit, and other conditions.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they would accept. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a small number of seriously ill workers who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They were successful in a variety of crucial legal rulings, such as Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the requirement to warn not only for specific products but also for industrial premises that contained asbestos raw. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize themselves in court and set money aside for the future asbestos-related obligations. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts put up by these companies still have to pay for asbestos-related damages.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure it was sufficient to prove that the victim worked at a place that used asbestos. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to identify their clients who were asbestos-containing products. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was the result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory paved the way for the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight back to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy involved attacking victims' evidence. They claimed that the illnesses of victims were the result of multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, not just one exposure. This was because the companies employed asbestos in a range of their products, and each was characterized by its own unique asbestos exposure risks. This was a major attack on mesothelioma sufferers right to rights as they were required to list all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

Defense lawyers also began to challenge plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount paid to asbestos victims was excessive and not in proportion to the physical injuries that each victim sustained. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their emotional, financial and physical damages. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance industry as every company was obliged to pay out large sums of money to asbestos patients even if they were not the cause of their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also attempted to limit asbestos victims' right to be compensated by arguing that the insurance coverage of their employers was adequate at the time of mesothelioma's development. Medical evidence shows that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually appear 10 years after exposure.

One of the most devastating assaults on asbestos lawsuit attorney victims was from lawyers who were specialized in this type of litigation. These attorneys gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk hoping to overwhelm court system. They also devised a secret coaching system to help their clients target particular defendants. Often, asbestos companies paid for this.

While some cases went to trial, the majority of victims settled with asbestos companies before or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company to stop the legal claim to compensation. The settlement may be reached prior to, during or after the trial and is not required to meet the same standards as jury verdicts.