10 Simple Ways To Figure Out Your Asbestos Lawsuit

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision, asbestos lawsuits exploded and took hold. 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 a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District was the site of a legal landmark. A retired judge was able to uncover a long-standing scheme to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits have their roots in the law of tort which stipulates that a seller or manufacturer of any product can be held accountable for any injury caused by the product if it knew or should have known about the dangers associated with its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved asbestos's dangers and could be linked to lung diseases like asbestosis, but also to a rare type of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more accurate tests that proved the connection between asbestos and health. This resulted in an increase in asbestos-related lawsuit lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case that gained significant legal recognition. The case was filed in 1969, and was ruled on in 1973.

This case set the precedent for the many asbestos personal injury lawsuit cases to follow. This was the first instance where courts held asbestos manufacturers guilty under strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove that the companies had acted negligently as it allowed victims to sue multiple manufacturers at one time.

Texas was the next state to achieve the landmark in the history of asbestos litigation. In 2005 the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required that mesothelioma and other asbestos cases be determined by peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of conjecture and supposition from hired-gun experts. This was a significant change in the law and has helped to stop the raging asbestos litigation.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of several plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies, under RICO. This is a federal law designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar strategies. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants as well as claimants.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products could pose for decades, manufacturers kept putting profits ahead of safety. They even used bribes to get workers to keep quiet about their exposure to asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out in the end, tens of thousands victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a national litigation blaze. In the subsequent three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A majority of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas, a state with favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants could be held responsible for damages if they negligently exposed a person to asbestos, and the person developed an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the company's actions and set the stage for the mass tort system which continues to this day.

The case also set a high standard for asbestos victims, which allowed them to recover all damages from only one of their employers, rather than a number of. Insurers realized the potential of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began using strategies to limit it.

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

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

In late 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman, asked a judge to unseal the transcript of Budd's deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo. Biederman believed that the testimony could shed some light on Budd and Baron's involvement in the mesothelioma defence strategy. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos-related lawsuits exploded in following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation saga raged for years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws, and the asbestos companies are headquartered there.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and then publish papers to support their defenses. They also used manipulative tactics on workers by offering them small sums to keep their health issues secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a time. The truth was revealed in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless behavior of asbestos company executives. Thousands of asbestos workers were in a position to sue asbestos cancer lawsuit mesothelioma settlement producers for mesothelioma and related conditions.

In 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 workers with medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.

Lawyers fought 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 the obligation to warn, not just for specific products however, but also for industrial facilities which contained asbestos. The duty to warn was later confirmed in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

In the early 1980s, many of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to organize in court and put money aside to cover future asbestos obligations. Unfortunately the trusts in bankruptcy created by these companies are 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 sufficient to prove that the victim worked at a place where asbestos was utilized. This made it more difficult for the legal system to determine exposure and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to identify their clients who were asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the reason for Baron and Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

After Clarence Borel's victory, more asbestos victims won their cases. However, asbestos Lawsuit texas asbestos companies began to fight back to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy was to challenge the victims' evidence. They claimed that the diseases of victims were caused by multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, and not just one exposure. It was because Asbestos lawsuit texas was used in numerous products and each had an asbestos exposure risk. This was a grave attack on the rights of mesothelioma patients, since it required them to identify all their asbestos-exposed employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over the issue of compensation damages. They argued that the amount awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and insufficient to the injuries that each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, physical and financial loss. This was a major challenge to the insurance industry as it meant that every company was accountable for paying huge amounts of money to asbestos victims, even if they did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurance companies also attempted to limit asbestos victims' ability to be compensated by arguing that their employer's insurance coverage was sufficient at the time of mesothelioma's development. 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 devastating assaults on asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma victims was from lawyers who were specialized in this type of litigation. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a secret coaching process to help their clients target specific defendants. Many times, asbestos companies paid them to do this.

Although some cases were brought to trial, the majority of victims were able to settle with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company to stop an legal claim for compensation. The settlement can be reached before, during or after the trial, and does not need to meet the same requirements as jury verdicts.