Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complicated procedure. 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 one time.

The law requires manufacturers of dangerous products to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that mill, mine or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits could award victims compensation for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include amount of money for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. In the case of a area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings for years, many companies continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products throughout the United States. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 metric tons. Yakima asbestos lawsuit of asbestos was driven by the need for low-cost and robust construction materials to support the growing population. Increasing demand for inexpensive asbestos products that were mass-produced led to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.

In the year 1980, asbestos companies faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits with huge amounts of cash. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in a large amount of fraud and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

In a Neoclassical building made of limestone situated on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.

He found, for example that in one instance a lawyer claimed to jurors that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a greater range of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to get asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.

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

The Second Case

The negligence of companies who produced and sold asbestos-related products has led to the development mesothelioma that has affected thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their loss.

Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court determined that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries because they failed to warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for asbestos lawsuits in the future to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.

While asbestos litigation was growing in the industry, many of the companies involved in the cases were trying to find ways to limit their liability. They did this by paying untruthful "experts" to conduct research and publish documents that would allow them to argue their case in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the facts about the asbestos's health hazards.

One of the most troubling developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of filing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it may be helpful in certain situations, it can create confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. In addition the courts have a long history of denying class action lawsuits in asbestos cases.

Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are trying to limit the types of damages juries can decide to award. This is an important issue because it will affect the amount of money victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease develops after exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies once used in various construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.

Mesothelioma is a disease with a long latency period, meaning people do not often show signs of the disease until many years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. In addition, the companies who used asbestos often concealed their use of asbestos because they knew it was a risk.


Many asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy because of the raging litigation over mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to reform under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

But this also led to an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that could restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have tried to claim that their products were not made of asbestos-containing material but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials that were later purchased by defendants. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

In the 1980s, and 1990s, New York was home to a variety of significant asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped to reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.

Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms to the law required the evidence in an asbestos lawsuit be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than on conjecture and supposition from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their opponents - the lawyers they represent. This tactic is designed to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a dishonest tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

This method has proven to be extremely effective, and this is the reason why those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult with an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you aren't sure that you have mesothelioma expert firm will be able to find evidence and make a convincing claim.

In the beginning asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad variety of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued companies that mined or manufactured asbestos-related products. A second group of litigants included those exposed at the home or in public buildings who sued property owners and employers. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against distributors of asbestos-containing materials, manufacturers of protective equipment and banks that funded asbestos projects, and many other parties.

One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation was in Texas. Asbestos firms in the state were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and taking cases to court in huge numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of educating its clients to target specific defendants and filing cases in bulk, with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies that helped to quell the litigation firestorm.

Asbestos victims need fair compensation for their losses, including the cost of medical care. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure you receive the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer will review your particular situation, determine whether you have a viable mesothelioma case and help you pursue justice against asbestos-related firms that hurt you.