How To Get More Results With Your Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complex procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve a significant number of claims at one time.
The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to inform consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies who mine, mill or manufacture asbestos-containing products or asbestos lawyer-containing materials.
The First Case
One of the earliest asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers failed to warn workers about the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a wide range of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages can include a amount of money for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Based on the jurisdiction, victims may also be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite years of warnings, many manufacturers continued to employ asbestos in a range of products throughout the United States. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos in the world was more than 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was primarily driven by the requirement for durable and affordable construction materials in order to keep pace with population growth. The demand for inexpensive mass-produced products made from asbestos fueled the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
By the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits with huge sums of cash. However the lawsuits and other investigations have revealed a huge amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The lawsuits that followed led to convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).
In a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to fraudulently defraud defendants and to drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawyers lawsuits.
For instance, he found that in one instance, an attorney claimed that the jury that his client had only been exposed to Garlock's products but the evidence pointed to a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even made up evidence to obtain asbestos victims' settlements.
Since then other judges have also noted the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the continuing revelations about fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimations of the amount asbestos victims owe companies.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments due to the negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive substantial compensation for their loss.
The first asbestos-related lawsuit to receive a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court held asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries because they did not warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in awards or verdicts for victims.
Many companies were trying to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. They did this by hiring untruthful "experts" to conduct research and then publish papers that would help them argue their case in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the truth about the health risks of asbestos.
One of the most troubling trends in asbestos lawyers litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims and their families to sue multiple defendants at once instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. While this strategy may be helpful in certain cases, can create confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected asbestos-related class action lawsuits as a result of cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants are also using a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying get judges to agree only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held accountable. They also want to limit the types of damages juries are able to give. This is a very important issue, as it will affect the amount of money the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the late 1960s mesothelioma cases began appearing on the court docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was previously used in a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma sufferers have a long latency period which means that patients do not typically show signs of the disease until many years after being exposed to the material. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is a dangerous material and businesses that use it often conceal their use.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize in a court-supervised proceeding and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this also led to an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured, but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that was subsequently purchased. The British case of Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.
In the 1980s and into the 1990s, New York was home to a series of large asbestos trials, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, helped to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
Another important development in asbestos litigation came through the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or supposition by an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, along with the passage of other reforms similar to them, effectively squelched the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims they began to attack their adversaries - the lawyers they represent. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs look guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic intended to deflect attention from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and the mesothelioma that followed.
This strategy has proven be extremely effective. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you aren't sure you're suffering from mesothelioma expert firm will be able to find evidence and build a strong claim.
In the early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by different types of litigants. First, there were those exposed at work suing businesses that mined and produced asbestos-related products. Second, those who were exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases filed suit against suppliers of asbestos-containing products and manufacturers of protective equipment as well as banks that financed asbestos-related projects, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and provoking them in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to focus on specific defendants and to file cases with no regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and instituted legislative remedies to quell the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, which includes medical treatment costs. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to make sure you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer will review the facts of your case, determine if you have a valid mesothelioma claim and assist you in pursuing justice.