15 Unquestionably Good Reasons To Be Loving Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complicated manner. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York that resolve a number of claims at one time.
Companies that manufacture dangerous products are required by law to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
One of the earliest asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits could award victims compensation for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of sum of money for discomfort and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. Based on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages to punish the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 metric tons. The massive demand for asbestos was primarily driven by the need for sturdy and cheap building materials to accommodate population growth. The demand for cheap manufactured products made of asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
By the year 1980, asbestos companies faced a plethora of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large amounts of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations showed a huge amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The resulting litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical limestone building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to fraudulently defraud defendants and to drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.
Hodges found, for instance that in one instance a lawyer claimed to the jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence showed a larger scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers used false claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to gain asbestos victims the compensation they wanted.
Other judges have also noted dubious legal maneuvering in asbestos cases, though not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimates of how much asbestos victims owe businesses.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases because of the negligence of businesses that manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their loss.
The first asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis after working as an insulation worker for 33 years. The court ruled that the makers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries since they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened up the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in awards or verdicts for victims.
As asbestos litigation grew, many of the companies involved in the litigation were trying to find ways to limit their liability. This was done by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write documents that could justify their claims in court. These companies also used their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth about the health risks of asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most disturbing developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of filing separate lawsuits against each company. This tactic, while it could be beneficial in certain cases, can cause confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can help them limit the scope of their liability. They are attempting to get judges to agree that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also want to limit the types damages that a juror may award. This is an important issue since it could affect the amount of money that victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma lawsuits increased in the late 1960s. The disease develops following exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies used to make various construction materials. The lawsuits brought by those who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
The latency period for mesothelioma is long, which means that people don't usually show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related ailments. Asbestos is a dangerous material, and companies that use it frequently cover up their use.
Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy because of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of a court and put funds aside to cover future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma victims as well as other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this also led to an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have tried to argue that their products were not made of asbestos-containing material but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were later purchased by the defendants. This argument is well-executed in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A series of large consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, occurred in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passing of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an significant development in asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or suppositions made by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passage of similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation raging.
Rochester Hills asbestos lawyer
As the asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits brought by victims, they began to attack their opponents and the lawyers who represent them. The purpose of this tactic is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous that is designed to distract attention from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos 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 quickly as possible. Even if it isn't clear that you believe you are mesothelioma, an expert firm with the right resources can provide evidence of exposure and build a strong case.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by various litigants. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos products. Second, those who were exposed in private or public structures sued employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases sued asbestos-containing material distributors and manufacturers of protective equipment as well as banks that financed asbestos-related projects, and numerous other parties.
Texas was the site of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and bringing them to trial in large numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms that was renowned for its shrewd method of instructing clients to target specific defendants and to file cases with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and instituted legislative remedies to quell the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, including medical expenses. To ensure you get the compensation you have a right to, contact a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can review the facts of your case and determine if there is an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.