How To Outsmart Your Boss In Asbestos Lawsuit

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and won more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been a crucial part of our past.

Following a 1973 court decision, a firestorm of asbestos lawsuits began to take hold. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of non-impaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

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

Asbestos lawsuits are rooted in the tort law, which states that the seller or manufacturer of any product can be held responsible for any injury caused by the product if the manufacturer knew or should have known the dangers of its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research showed that asbestos was harmful and linked to not only lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued to sell their products.

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

This case set the precedent for many of the other asbestos cases that will follow. This was the first instance in which courts ruled asbestos manufacturers guilty under strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could sue several manufacturers at the same time.

Texas was the next state to reach a major milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 15 The law required mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit cases as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, asbestos lawsuit not speculation or suppositions made by hired-gun experts. This was a significant change in the law that helped stop the furore of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a variety of plaintiffs' attorneys and their companies under RICO which is a federal law that was designed to catch those who are involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar tactics. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants and the plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades, they continued to put profits over safety. Workers were bribed to keep secret about asbestos-related illnesses, such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers received damages when the truth was revealed.

In 1973, one case set off a blaze of litigation across the nation. In the next three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas which had favorable laws regarding asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 found asbestos defendants could be held liable if they negligently expose an individual to asbestos lawsuit settlement and that this person develops an asbestos-related illness. The case moved veterans asbestos lawsuits litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the actions of the company. It opened the way for mass torts, which are still in force today.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to claim the full amount of damages from one of their employers, rather than several. Insurance companies recognized the benefits of a legal method to limit asbestos exposure and began employing strategies to limit exposure.

These cynical tactics included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to limit their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not a cause for negligence, as exposure could occur from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. In certain instances these cases, they involve talcum powder, which contains naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after using talcum powder in the 1970s and 80s.

In the last quarter of 2016, a reporter for the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested that a judge release the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman believed that the testimony would shed light on Baron and Budd's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy However, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began increase in volume. The litigation firestorm raged on for a long time. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and because the asbestos companies were headquartered in Texas.

The defendants fought back the plaintiffs assertions. They hired scientists to conduct research and then publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also used manipulation to influence employees, paying small amounts to keep their health issues quiet and encouraging them to sign confidentiality contracts.

These tactics were effective for a time. But the truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers for the victims revealed the Sumner Simpson papers and the ruthless behavior of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma, and other conditions.

By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients they would take on. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller number of seriously ill employees who had medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.

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

Several of the largest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them to reorganize in court and put money aside to pay for future asbestos-related liabilities. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts set 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 exposure to asbestos, it was enough to prove that the victim worked at a site that used asbestos. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products lawyers representing plaintiffs. Baron & Budd's "coaching memo" was a result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

After Clarence Borel's victory, more asbestos victims won their cases. But asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They started attacking victims on different areas.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of victims. They claimed that the illnesses of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, and not just one exposure. This was because the companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each had its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma sufferers right to rights as they were required to list all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began attacking plaintiffs over the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was unreasonable and not proportional to the injuries suffered by each victim. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their physical, emotional and financial losses. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance industry as every company was obliged to pay out large sums of money to class action lawsuit asbestos exposure sufferers, even if they did not cause their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict the right of asbestos victims to claim compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to damages beyond the level of the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that symptoms of mesothelioma usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation have launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a secret coaching process to assist their clients in identifying particular defendants. Many times asbestos companies paid them to do this.

Although some cases went to trial, many victims reached agreements with asbestos companies prior to or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is a deal between a victim and an asbestos company to settle a legal claim for compensation. It can be reached prior to, during or after a trial. It is not subject to the same conditions as a jury verdict.