asbestos lawsuit (go to these guys) History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled by a complex process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in consolidated asbestos trials in New York, which resolve several claims in one go.
The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies that mine, mill or manufacture 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. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers did not warn workers of the risks of inhaling asbestos, a dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can provide victims with compensation for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include amount of money for suffering and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongful actions.
Despite warnings for many years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos lawyer. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos lawyers surpassed 109,000 metric tons. The massive consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for affordable and robust construction materials to support the growing population. The demand for inexpensive mass-produced products made from asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy and others settled lawsuits with large amounts of cash. However the lawsuits and other investigations have revealed an enormous amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The subsequent litigation led to convictions for many individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical building of limestone on Trade Street, Charlotte’s Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and rob trusts in bankruptcy. His “estimation ruling” drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
Hodges found, for instance that in one instance the lawyer told jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence indicated a much larger scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers created false claims, hid information, and even made up evidence to get asbestos victims settlements.
Other judges have also discovered legal evasions in asbestos cases, although not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the continuing revelations about fraud and abuse 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 illnesses because of the negligence of businesses that produced and sold asbestos lawyer-related products. Asbestos suits have been filed in federal and state courts. Victims often receive a substantial amount of compensation.
The first asbestos-related lawsuit to receive 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 held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries, because they did not warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of future asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in awards or verdicts for victims.
As asbestos litigation grew and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the cases were trying to find ways to minimize their liability. They did this by hiring suspicious “experts” to conduct research and then publish documents that would allow them to present their arguments in the courtroom. These companies also used their resources to influence public opinion about the truth about asbestos’s health risks.
One of the most disturbing developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow victims to sue several defendants at once, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it could be beneficial in certain cases, could cause confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only the producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also would like to limit the types of damages a judge can award. This is an important issue because it will affect the amount of money that the victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases started to increase on the court docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was once used in many construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with long periods of latency which means that patients do not usually show symptoms of the disease until years after exposure to the material. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related ailments. Additionally, the companies who used asbestos often covered up their use of the material because they knew that it was dangerous.
The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize in an unsupervised court proceeding and set funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related illnesses.
However, this also triggered an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that could restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products weren’t manufactured but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials which was later purchased. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.
A number of massive consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that 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. These trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings for companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the adoption of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an important step in the asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in a lawsuit involving asbestos be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than based on speculation and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, and the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively put out the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf victims, they began to attack their adversaries – lawyers who represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs look guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous designed to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma which followed.
This method has proven to be extremely efficient, and that is the reason why those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult with an experienced firm as soon as possible. Even if it isn’t clear that you think you have a mesothelioma case, an experienced firm with the right resources can locate evidence of your exposure and help build a solid case.
In the early days of asbestos litigation, there was a wide range of legal claims brought by various litigants. First, there were workers exposed in the workplace suing businesses that mined and produced asbestos products. Then, those exposed in private or public buildings sued their employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases suing distributors of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks who financed projects using asbestos and many other parties.
Texas was the site of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and provoking them in huge quantities. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was known for its secret method of educating its clients to select specific defendants and filing cases in bulk, with no regard to accuracy. This practice of “junk science” in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by courts and legislative remedies were enacted that helped douse the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including the cost of medical treatment. Contact a reputable law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to make sure you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer will review the circumstances of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma claim and assist you in pursuing justice.