asbestos lawsuit history (their website)

Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complicated manner. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have been a major part of asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve a significant number of claims at once.

Companies that produce hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mine, mill or produce asbestos class action lawsuit or asbestos-containing substances.

The First Case

One of the first asbestos trust fund settlements lawsuits ever filed was filed by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several manufacturers of asbestos insulation products failed to warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos, a hazardous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits could provide victims with compensation for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. The compensation can consist of a cash amount for pain and discomfort, lost earnings, medical costs, and property damages. Depending on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their actions.

Despite warnings for many years and despite warnings from the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos around the world exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The massive demand for asbestos was primarily driven by the requirement for durable and inexpensive construction materials in order to support the growth of population. The demand for cheap mass-produced products made from asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of manufacturing and mining industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were facing thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits with huge amounts of cash. But investigations and lawsuits found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in many frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).

In a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the face of asbestos lawsuits.

He found, for example in one instance, a lawyer claimed to jurors that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence suggested a far broader scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys made up claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to get asbestos settlements victims the settlements they wanted.

Other judges have observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, although not as extensive as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will lead to more accurate estimates of how much companies owe asbestos victims.

The Second Case

Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases due to the negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos suits have been filed both in federal and state courts. Victims often receive substantial compensation.

The first asbestos lawsuit to get a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis after working as an insulation worker for 33 years. The court ruled that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries because they did not inform him of the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling could open the possibility of future asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in verdicts or awards for victims.

While asbestos litigation was growing in the industry, many of the companies involved in the litigation were trying to find ways to reduce 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. They also employed their resources to to distort public perceptions of the facts about the asbestos's health risks.

One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this approach could be beneficial in certain cases, it can result in a lot confusion and time wastage for asbestos victims and their families. Additionally, the courts have a long track record of refusing asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.

Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to search for legal rulings that will assist them in limiting the extent of their liability. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also would like to limit the types of damages a judge can award. This is a very important issue, since it will impact the amount the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s mesothelioma cases began appearing on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure, a mineral that was previously used in a variety of construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.

Mesothelioma has long periods of latency, meaning people do not often show signs of the illness until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related illnesses because of its lengthy latency period. Additionally, the businesses who used asbestos typically concealed their use of asbestos because they knew it was dangerous.

Many asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the mesothelioma litigation suits. This allowed them to reorganize under court supervision and set funds aside to cover the current and future asbestos settlement-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma sufferers and other asbestos-related illnesses.

This has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that could restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that was later purchased. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

In the 1980s, and into the 1990s, New York was home to a number of major asbestos trials, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigations that were major in New York. The consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were combined into one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits, and resulted in significant savings for businesses involved in litigation.

Another significant change in asbestos litigation occurred through the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition from an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, along with the passing of other similar reforms, effectively quelled 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 and the lawyers that represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic that is designed to distract focus from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and the mesothelioma which followed.

This strategy has been very efficient, and that is the reason people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if it isn't clear that you believe you are a mesothelioma case An experienced firm with the appropriate resources can provide evidence of exposure and help build a solid case.

In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a wide variety of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. In the second, those exposed in public or private structures sued employers and asbestos Lawsuit history property owners. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, sued companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects using asbestos, and many other parties.

One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms in Texas specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and bringing the cases to court in large numbers. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was known for its secret method of educating its clients to target particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk, with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and enacted legislative remedies that helped to stop the litigation rumbling.

Asbestos victims deserve an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, including medical costs. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can review your individual circumstances, determine whether you have an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and help you seek justice against the asbestos companies that harmed you.