10 Easy Ways To Figure Out Your Asbestos Lawsuit
Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos lawsuit asbestos History
Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firms. This is a significant aspect of our history.
A 1973 court ruling sparked a firestorm in asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of non-impaired plaintiffs.
The First Case
The asbestos lawsuit started in a neoclassical structure on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to record legal history, however, this is exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able to uncover a long-running scheme that was used to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.
Asbestos-related lawsuits have their origins in the tort law which states that a manufacturer or seller of any product may be held accountable for any injury caused by the product if it knew or should have been aware of the dangers of its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research showed asbestos's harmful effects and was linked to not just lung diseases such as asbestosis but also a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied the dangers and continued to sell their products.
In the 1970s, scientists had created more precise tests to prove the link between illness and asbestos. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to gain significant legal recognition. It was filed in 1969, and decided in 1973.
This case set the tone for many of the other asbestos cases that will follow. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. It was not necessary for plaintiffs to prove that the companies committed negligence as it allowed victims to sue multiple manufacturers at once.
The next significant landmark in the history of asbestos lawsuits occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005 the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. The law required mesothelioma cases, as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a major advancement in the law and has helped stop the raging asbestos lawsuits (additional hints).
Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their companies under RICO, which is a federal law crafted to catch those involved in organized crime. A concerted effort to hide evidence, mishandle and discard asbestos waste, hide documents and other similar tactics have been exposed by courts, resulting in several RICO convictions for plaintiffs and defendants alike.
The Second Case
Despite asbestos producers being aware of the dangers of their products for decades, they continued to put profits ahead of safety. They even used bribes to get workers to keep quiet about their exposure to military asbestos lawsuit-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged, tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.
One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a nation-wide litigation firestorm. In the following three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas which had favorable laws governing asbestos litigation.
The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held responsible for damages if they negligently exposed a person to asbestos and that those persons developed an asbestos-related disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the actions of the company and set the stage for the mass tort system which continues today.
The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their entire damages from just one employer, asbestos lawsuits instead of several. Insurance companies quickly realized the benefits of this legal method and began using strategies to limit their exposure.
To reduce the risk of liability, these cynical methods include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air wasn't negligent, as exposure could occur from a variety of sources.
Asbestos litigation is still ongoing and there are new asbestos cases filed each year. In some cases these cases, the plaintiffs are suing talcum powder, which contains naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma because of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.
In the latter part of 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested that a judge unseal the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman hoped the testimony would provide some insight into Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence plan. However the trial court rejected her request.
The Third Case
Asbestos-related lawsuits exploded in wake of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation war raged for years. Many victims developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws and the asbestos companies are headquartered there.
The defendants fought back the plaintiffs' claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulated workers, paying them small sums to keep their health problems quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.
These tactics were successful for a short period of time. The truth was exposed in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers representing the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma and other diseases.
In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients they would take on. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller number of seriously ill employees who had medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.
Lawyers fought against asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They were successful in a variety of important legal rulings, including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn referred not just to certain 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 lawsuit settlement amounts manufacturers filed for bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them to reorganize in court and put money aside to pay for future asbestos obligations. However the trusts in bankruptcy created by these companies are 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 at a site where asbestos was utilized. This weakened the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to determine their clients who were asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memo".
The Fourth Case
Following the victory of Clarence Borel, more asbestos victims won their lawsuits. But asbestos companies began to fight for their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.
One strategy was to attack evidence from victims. They claimed that the victims suffered from illnesses that were the result of multiple exposures to asbestos by many employers and not a single exposure. It was because asbestos was used in many products, and each one posed its own asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma patients, because it required them to disclose all asbestos-exposed employers.
The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They asserted that the amount paid to asbestos victims was unjust and not proportional to the harms that each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and physical injuries. This posed a major challenge to the insurance sector, since every company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos patients, Asbestos lawsuits even if they did not cause their asbestos-related illness.
Insurance companies also tried to limit asbestos victims' right to claim compensation, arguing that their employer's insurance coverage was adequate at the time of the development of mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that symptoms of mesothelioma typically appear 10 years after exposure.
One of the most devastating attacks against asbestos victims came from lawyers who were specialized in this kind of litigation. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a system for secretly coaching their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid by the asbestos companies they targeted.
Although some cases were brought to trial, the majority of victims reached agreements with asbestos companies prior to or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company which ends a legal claim of compensation. The settlement can be reached before, during or after the trial. It does not have to meet the same requirements as jury verdicts.