20 Myths About Asbestos Lawsuit History: Busted

Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a variety of claims all at one time.

The law requires companies that produce hazardous products to warn consumers of the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that mill, mine or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing substances.

The First Case

One of the earliest asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos, a dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits could provide victims with compensation for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include monetary value for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. In the case of a area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite numerous warnings, many manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the requirement for durable and cheap building materials to keep pace with population growth. The demand for cheap manufactured products made of asbestos fueled the rapid growth of manufacturing and asbestos class Action lawsuit mining industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. But investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing a large amount of fraud and corrupt practices. The lawsuits that followed led to convictions for many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

In a neoclassical structure of limestone situated on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to swindle clients and deplete trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the landscape of asbestos lawsuits.

Hodges found, for instance in one instance, a lawyer claimed to jurors that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence showed a greater range of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers used false claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to gain asbestos victims the settlements they sought.

Since then other judges have also observed the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more precise estimates of the amount companies owe to asbestos victims.

The Second Case

The negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos products has resulted in the emergence of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not uncommon for victims to receive substantial compensation for their losses.

The first asbestos lawsuit to win a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from asbestosis and mesothelioma after working as an insulation worker for 33 years. The court ruled that the makers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries due to the fact that they failed to inform him of the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits in the future to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.

While asbestos litigation was growing in the industry, many of the companies involved in the litigation were looking for ways to minimize their liability. They did this by hiring untruthful "experts" to conduct research and then publish documents that would allow them to make their arguments in court. They also employed their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the facts about the asbestos's health risks.

One of the most disturbing trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims and their families to sue multiple defendants at once instead of filing individual lawsuits against each company. This tactic, while it may be helpful in certain circumstances, it can create confusion and take away time from asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.

Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that will help them limit the scope of their liability. They are trying to get judges to agree that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also want to limit the types damages that a juror may award. This is an extremely important issue because it will affect the amount of money an asbestos 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 which was once used in many construction materials. Workers with mesothelioma have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.

Mesothelioma sufferers have a long latency period which means that patients do not typically show signs of the disease until years after being exposed to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of its lengthy period of latency. Asbestos is a hazardous material and companies that make use of it frequently cover up their use.

The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits led to a variety asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize themselves in an unsupervised court proceeding and set funds aside for future and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers and other asbestos-related diseases.

This has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in Asbestos Class action lawsuit lawsuits. For instance, a few defendants have attempted to claim that their products were not made from asbestos-containing materials, but were simply used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials later purchased by the defendants. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.

A string of large-scale consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigations that were major in New York. These consolidated trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits and also resulted in significant savings to companies involved in litigation.

Another key change in asbestos litigation occurred with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required the evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition by an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, as well as the passage of other reforms similar to them, effectively put out the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies ran out defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf victims, they began to attack their opponents - lawyers who represent them. This tactic is designed to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous intended to deflect attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma that followed.

This method has proven to be very efficient. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult a reputable law firm as soon as is possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest that you have mesothelioma experienced firm can provide evidence and make a convincing claim.

In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad variety of legal claims filed by different types of litigants. Workers who were exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. In the second, those exposed in private or public structures sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed asbestos projects, and many other parties.

One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms in the state were experts in promoting asbestos cases and taking cases to court in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to focus on specific defendants and for filing cases with no regard for accuracy. The courts eventually rebuked this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and instituted legislative remedies that helped to end the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, which includes the cost of medical treatment. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, seek out a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as soon as you can. A lawyer can analyze the facts of your case and determine if there is a valid mesothelioma claim and assist you in pursuing justice.