공지사항

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won, more asbestos disease compensation cases than any other law firm. This is a significant part of our history.

A 1973 court ruling set off an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. The lawsuits were filed by thousands of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a neoclassical limestone building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973 a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District became the location of a landmark legal landmark. It was at this point that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are founded on tort law, which states that any company could be held accountable for any injury caused by a product, asbestos class action lawsuit if they were aware or ought to be aware of the dangers of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved that asbestos was dangerous and linked not only to lung diseases like asbestosis lawsuit settlements, but also to a rare cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the dangers and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had created more precise tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos and disease. This resulted in a significant increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case that gained significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. It was filed in 1969 and was decided in 1973.

This case set the precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. This was the first case in which courts ruled asbestos producers guilty of strict liability. Plaintiffs didn't have to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could also sue multiple manufacturers at once.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history was in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. The law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, and not speculation or supposition made by hired gun experts. This was a major change in the law that helped reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a variety of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their firms under RICO, which is a federal law designed to catch those who are involved in organized criminal activity. A concerted effort to hide evidence, conceal and dispose of asbestos waste, conceal documents, and other similar strategies have been exposed by the courts, which has led to a number of RICO convictions for defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos producers being aware of the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits over safety. Workers were bribed into keeping secret about asbestos-related illnesses, like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers were compensated when the truth was finally exposed.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation firestorm. In the three decades that followed, 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 regarding asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 determined asbestos defendants could be held liable if they negligently expose the person to asbestos and that this person develops 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 which continues to this day.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims which allowed them to seek the full amount of damages from one of their employers rather than a number of. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal strategy and began to implement strategies to limit their exposure.

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

Asbestos litigation is still ongoing and there are new asbestos cases being filed every year. These cases often involve talcum, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma asbestos lawsuit as a result of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

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 testimony regarding the coaching memo. Biederman was hoping that the testimony would provide some insight into Budd and Baron's role in the mesothelioma defence strategy. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began increase in volume. The litigation saga raged for a long time. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and also because the asbestos companies were headquartered in Texas.

The defendants fought the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to research and publish papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated workers by offering them small sums to keep their health problems quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a time. However, the truth was revealed in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing victims came out with the Sumner Simpson papers and the ruthless behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Thousands of asbestos workers were in a position to sue asbestos producers for mesothelioma and other related ailments.

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

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

A number of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them to reorganize in court and set money aside to pay for future asbestos obligations. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts set by these companies continue to 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 enough to show the victim worked on a jobsite at which asbestos was used. This weakened the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products plaintiffs' lawyers. This new rule was the reason for Baron & Budd’s "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

After the victory of Clarence Borel asbestos victims also won their lawsuits. But asbestos companies began to fight back in order to ensure their profits. They started attacking victims on different areas.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of victims. They claimed that the victims suffered from illnesses that were the result of multiple exposures to asbestos by multiple employers, not one exposure. This was because companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product had its own unique asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious attack on mesothelioma patients rights since they were required to list all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded asbestos victims was excessive and out of proportion with the physical injuries that each victim sustained. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their emotional, financial and physical damages. This posed a major challenge to the insurance industry since every company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos sufferers regardless of whether they didn't cause their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurers also attempted to restrict the right of asbestos victims to claim compensation by claiming that they were not entitled to damages that were beyond the amount of the liability insurance coverage of their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence indicates that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation have launched one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a system for secretly instructing their clients to target particular defendants, and they were often paid by asbestos firms they targeted.

Although some cases went to trial, a lot of victims reached agreements with asbestos companies prior to or during the trial. An asbestos class action lawsuit (news) settlement is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos cancer lawsuit mesothelioma settlement company to end a legal claim for compensation. It can be reached before or after a trial. It is not subject to the same rules as a jury verdict.