Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and received more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been an important part of our past.

A 1973 court ruling set off an uproar in asbestos lawsuits. The cases were filed by thousands of plaintiffs who were not impaired.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973 the neoclassical limestone structure on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District was the site of a legal landmark. It was at this time that a judge was called back to the bench after retirement and began to unravel a how long does a asbestos lawsuit take-running scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to extort defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are founded on tort law, which states that a business is liable for any harm caused by a product if they knew or should have known about the dangers of its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research revealed asbestos was harmful and linked to not only lung diseases such as asbestosis but also a rare type of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more accurate tests that confirmed the link between asbestos and health. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to receive significant legal recognition. The case was filed in 1969 and decided in 1973.

This case set a precedent for many other asbestos cases that would follow. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos producers could be found guilty under the legal theory of strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue multiple manufacturers simultaneously.

Texas was the next state to reach an important milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, Asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. This law required that mesothelioma as well as other asbestos cases be determined by peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of conjecture and supposition from hired gun experts. This was a major advancement in the law and has helped to stop the raging asbestos lawsuits.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO, which is a federal law designed to catch those involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar tactics. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions, both for defendants and claimants.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products posed for decades, companies continued to place profits before safety. Workers were bribed to remain quiet about asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One case in 1973 served as the spark that ignited a national litigation blaze. In the years that followed, tens of 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 decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants could be held responsible for damages when they negligently exposed someone to asbestos, and the person developed an asbestos-related disease. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the company's actions and paved the way for the mass tort system which continues today.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to recover the full amount of damages from one of their employers, rather than several. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal strategy and started using strategies to limit their exposure.

These cynical strategies included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to reduce their liability. They also began to argue the mere presence asbestos in the air did not constitute negligence since exposure can occur from many sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. In certain instances these cases, the plaintiffs are suing talcum powder, which contains asbestos fibers naturally occurring in the environment. These cases usually involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder during the 1970s and 1980s.

In the latter part of 2016, a reporter from the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman, asked a judge to reveal the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman hoped that the testimony could shed light on Baron and Budd's role in mesothelioma's defense strategy However, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits began to explode. The litigation saga raged for many years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related lawsuit illnesses. The majority of the cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and because asbestos companies were headquartered there.

The defendants fought back against plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers to support their defenses. They also used manipulative tactics on workers by offering them small sums to keep their health issues at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a while. The truth was exposed in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos producers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma and other diseases.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients they would take on. Kazan Law focused on a smaller portion of workers who were seriously ill with medical proof of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought against the asbestos companies in their attempts to limit liability. They won a number important legal rulings, including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn applied not just to specific products but also to industrial facilities where raw asbestos was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

A number of the biggest asbestos manufacturers filed for bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This gave them the chance to organize themselves in court and put money aside for future asbestos liabilities. However the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies are still paying out asbestos-related claims today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure it was enough to show that the victim worked in a location where asbestos was used. This weakened the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products plaintiffs' lawyers. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was the consequence of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight for their profits. They began attacking victims on many different fronts.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of the victims. They claimed that the illnesses of victims were caused by multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, and not only one exposure. This was because the companies employed asbestos in a range of their products, and each product was characterized by its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma patients as it required them identify all asbestos-exposed employers.

Defense lawyers also began to challenge plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and asbestos lawsuit settlement Amounts out of proportion to the injuries suffered by each victim. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their emotional, financial and physical losses. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance sector, since every company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos patients regardless of whether they didn't cause their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also attempted to restrict asbestos victims' rights to receive compensation by arguing that the insurance coverage of their employers was sufficient at the time of mesothelioma's onset. This was despite the fact that medical evidence showed that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms typically occur 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation initiated one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts (click here to investigate) victims. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a secret coaching process to assist their clients in identifying specific defendants. Often, asbestos companies paid for this.

Many veterans asbestos lawsuits cases were settled before or during trials. A settlement involving asbestos is a deal between a victim and an asbestos company to stop the legal claim to compensation. The settlement can be reached during, before or after the trial. It does not need to meet the same standards as jury verdicts.