Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complicated manner. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims all at once.


Companies that manufacture dangerous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is particularly true for companies who mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The First Case

One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was filed by an employee of the construction industry named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a wide range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damage can include a cash amount for pain and discomfort and lost earnings, medical costs, and property damages. Based on where you live the victim may also be awarded punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings throughout the years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 metric tons. This enormous consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and durable construction materials to meet population growth. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products helped to fuel the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industry.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits using large sums of money. However the lawsuits and other investigations have revealed a huge amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's attorneys and asbestos companies. The resulting litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).

In a limestone neoclassical 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 landscape of asbestos lawsuits.

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

Other judges have noted dubious legal maneuvering in asbestos cases, but not as extensive as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe asbestos victims.

The Second Case

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

The first asbestos-related lawsuit to receive a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries, because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in settlements or awards for victims.

As asbestos litigation grew and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the cases were looking for ways to limit their liability. This was done by paying "experts" who were not reputable to conduct research and write documents that could support their arguments in court. They also employed their resources to to influence public perceptions of the facts about the asbestos's health risks.

Visalia asbestos attorney of the most disturbing developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allow victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this tactic could be beneficial in certain instances, it could lead to a lot of confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. In addition the courts have a long history of denying class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can assist them in limiting the scope of their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held accountable. They are also trying to limit the types of damages that a jury can give. This is a crucial issue because it will affect the amount of money the victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

The mesothelioma-related lawsuits began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease develops following exposure to asbestos, a mineral many companies once used in a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma focused on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

Mesothelioma has a long latency period which means that patients do not often show signs of the disease until years after being exposed to the material. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. Additionally, the businesses that used asbestos frequently concealed their use of the substance because they knew that it was dangerous.

The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits led to a variety asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to organize themselves in a court-supervised proceeding and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

But this also triggered an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos materials which was later purchased. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

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 attorneys served as leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, helped to reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.

Another key change in asbestos litigation occurred with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required that the evidence used in an asbestos lawsuit be based on peer-reviewed scientific research rather than based on speculation or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies ran out defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began attacking their adversaries attorneys who represent them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a shady tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This strategy has been very effective, and this is why people who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should seek out an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you don't think you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.

In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. Workers exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos-related products. In the second, those exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective gear as well as banks that financed asbestos projects, as well as numerous other parties.

Texas was the location of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in the state were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and taking cases to court in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which became famous for its secret method of instructing clients to target specific defendants and to file cases without regard to accuracy. This method of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits eventually was disavowed by courts and legislative remedies were put in place which helped to stop the litigation raging.

Asbestos sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, which includes medical treatment costs. Contact a reputable law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure that you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case and determine if you have a valid mesothelioma claim and help you pursue justice.