Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been an extremely important part of our history.

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

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical structure on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973 the neoclassical limestone structure on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District was the site of a legal landmark. It was at this point that a judge returned to the bench after his retirement and began to unravel a long-running scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to defraud defendant companies and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

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

In the 1970s, scientists developed more precise tests to prove the link between asbestos-related illnesses and asbestos class action lawsuit. This led to an 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 set the precedent for a lot of other asbestos cases that will follow. It was the first time that the courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal doctrine of strict liability. Plaintiffs didn't have to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue several manufacturers at once.

Texas was the next state to reach a major milestone in the history of asbestos litigation. In 2005, the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of conjecture and supposition from hired gun experts. This was a major change in the law and has helped to stop the raging asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs lawyers and their firms, under RICO. It is a federal statute designed to catch those involved in organized criminal activities. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, hide documents and Asbestos Lawsuit History other similar tactics. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants as well as the plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos producers being aware of the dangers of their products for decades, they continued to put profits ahead of safety. They even used bribes to get workers to conceal their exposure to asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma patients were awarded compensation when the truth was exposed.

One case in 1973 served as the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation firestorm. In the decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws governing asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 determined that asbestos defendants can be held liable if they negligently expose the person to asbestos, and this person develops an asbestos exposure lawsuit-related disease. This case shifted asbestos litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the actions of the company. It paved the way for mass torts that continue today.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims which allowed them to recover full damages from just one of their employers rather than a number of. Insurers quickly realized the potential of this legal strategy and began to employ tactics to reduce their exposure.

These cynical tactics included altering the definition of "exposure" in order to reduce their liability. They also began to argue the mere presence asbestos in the air did not constitute negligence, since exposure can occur from many sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. These claims sometimes involve the talcum powder, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma because of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer asked a court to open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in late 2016. Biederman was hoping that 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

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began increase in volume. The litigation war raged for years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos exposure lawsuit settlements-related diseases. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and also because asbestos companies had their headquarters in Texas.

The defendants fought back against the plaintiffs assertions. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated workers, paying them small sums to keep their health problems secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies worked for a while. But the truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing the victims exposed 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 and other diseases.

By the mid-1980s asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they accepted. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.

Lawyers fought against the asbestos companies in their attempts to limit liability. They won a number of important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn referred not just to certain products but also to industrial facilities where raw asbestos was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, a number of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This gave them the opportunity to reorganize their businesses in court and put money aside for future asbestos obligations. 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, it was sufficient to show that the victim was on a site where asbestos was employed. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to determine their clients with asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the reason for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

Following the victory of Clarence Borel, more asbestos victims won their cases. But asbestos companies started to fight for their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy involved attacking evidence from victims. They claimed that the victims' illnesses were caused by multiple exposures to asbestos from multiple employers, not a single exposure. This was due to the fact that companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product had its own unique asbestos exposure risks. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma patients, because it required them to disclose all their asbestos-exposed employers.

Defense lawyers also began to challenge plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount awarded asbestos victims was too high and not in proportion to the physical injuries that each victim sustained. asbestos exposure lawsuit victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and physical losses. This presented a significant challenge for the insurance industry, as each company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos patients regardless of whether they didn't cause their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurance companies also attempted to restrict asbestos victims' rights to be compensated by claiming that the insurance coverage provided by their employer was adequate at the time of mesothelioma's onset. Medical evidence shows that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

One of the most damaging assaults on asbestos victims was from lawyers who were specialized in this type of litigation. These attorneys gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a system for secretly coaching their clients to target particular defendants. They were often paid by the asbestos companies they targeted.

Although some cases went to trial, the majority of victims settled with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is a deal between the victim and the asbestos company to stop the legal claim to compensation. It can be reached before or after a trial. It is not subject to the same conditions as a jury verdict.