Notes

Don't Be Enticed By These "Trends" Concerning Asbestos Lawsuit
Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and received more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firms. This has been a tremendously significant aspect of our history.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits in a blaze began to take hold. The lawsuits were filed by thousands of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to create legal history however, this is exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this time that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retiring and began to unravel a decades-old scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to extort defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are founded on tort law, which states that any company is liable for any injury caused by a product, if they knew or should be aware of the dangers associated with its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated that asbestos was dangerous and was linked to not just lung diseases like asbestosis, but also to a rare cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the dangers and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists developed more accurate tests to prove the link between asbestos and illness. 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 the year 1969 and was decided in 1973.

This case was a precedent for many other asbestos cases that would follow. This was the first instance where courts held asbestos manufacturers guilty under strict liability. Plaintiffs did not have to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could sue several manufacturers at once.

Texas was the next state to reach the landmark in the history of asbestos litigation. In 2005 the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. The law required mesothelioma cases as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, rather than speculation or supposition made by hired gun experts. This was a major change in the law that helped to stop the furore of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of several plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies, under RICO. It is a federal statute designed to catch those who are involved in organized crime. The courts have revealed a concerted effort to conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar tactics. asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit has led to a variety of RICO convictions for defendants as well as claimants.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products posed for decades, manufacturers put profits over safety. Workers were bribed into keeping from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims were compensated when the truth was disclosed.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation firestorm. In the next three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas which had favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants could be held liable for damages if they negligently exposed a person to asbestos and that the person developed an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the actions of the company and paved the way for the mass tort system that is still in place today.

The case also set a new standard for asbestos victims, which allowed them to claim all damages from only one of their employers rather than a number of. Insurers quickly realized the potential of this legal strategy and started to employ tactics to reduce their exposure.


These cynical strategies included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to lessen their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air wasn't negligent because exposure can occur from various sources.

Asbestos litigation is still ongoing and there are new asbestos cases filed each year. These cases often involve the talcum powder, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after using talcum powder in the 1970s and 80s.

In the latter part of 2016, a reporter from the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested a judge to unseal the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman was hoping that the testimony could provide insight into Baron and Budd's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy however, the trial court denied the request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began explode. The litigation inferno raged for a number of years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws and asbestos companies have located in Texas.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulated their workers by paying them small amounts to keep their health issues secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies were effective for a time. But the truth came out in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers for the victims revealed the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma, and other conditions.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients that they would accept. Kazan Law focused on a smaller number of seriously ill workers who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They won several important legal rulings including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the duty to warn, not just for specific products but also for industrial facilities that contained raw asbestos. The duty to warn was later confirmed in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

Many of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This gave them the opportunity to reorganize their businesses in court and put money aside for future asbestos liabilities. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts put up by these companies still have to pay for asbestos-related damages.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was necessary to show the victim worked at a place of work where asbestos was utilized. This made it more difficult for the legal system to determine exposure and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to determine their clients with asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the reason for Baron and Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight back in order to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy was to attack the victims' evidence. They claimed that the victims' illnesses were caused by multiple exposures to asbestos from numerous employers and not just a single exposure. This was because the companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product was characterized by its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a major attack on mesothelioma patients rights since it required them to identify all asbestos-exposured employers.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and out of proportion to the injuries that each victim suffered. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their financial, emotional and physical losses. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry as it meant that each company was accountable for paying large sums of money to asbestos victims even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict the rights of asbestos victims to receive compensation by arguing that they weren't entitled to any damages that went beyond the liability insurance coverage of their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence proved that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos and that mesothelioma-related symptoms typically develop 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation have launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also created a process for secretly coaching their clients to target specific defendants, and they were often paid to do so by the asbestos companies they targeted.

Although some cases went to trial, many victims settled with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is an agreement between a victim and the asbestos company to settle a legal claim for compensation. It can be reached before, during or after a trial. It is not subject to the same rules as a jury verdict.

Website: https://www.lawsuitasbestos.top/