Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won more asbestos disease compensation cases than any other law firm. This has been an important part of our past.

A 1973 court decision sparked an uproar in asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit was initiated in a neoclassical building located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to make legal history, but that's exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this time that how long does a asbestos lawsuit take judge resurfaced on the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme by plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendant companies and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits are rooted in the law of tort, which states that the seller or manufacturer of any product can be held accountable for any harm caused by the product if it knew or should have been aware of the danger of its use. In the 1950s and 1960s, research showed that asbestos was harmful and could cause lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists developed more accurate tests to prove the link between asbestos-related illnesses and asbestos. This led to an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case that gained significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. The case was filed in 1969 and ruled in 1973.

This case set the tone for many of the other asbestos cases to come. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal doctrine of strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove that the companies had committed negligence and allowed victims to sue multiple manufacturers at the same time.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005 the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required that mesothelioma and other asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of supposition and conjecture from hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law, which helped calm the firestorm of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO. It is a federal law designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activities. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, conceal and dispose of asbestos waste, conceal documents, and other similar strategies have been exposed by the courts, resulting in numerous RICO convictions for defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos manufacturers knowing the dangers of their products for decades and decades, they put profits over safety. Workers were bribed to remain quiet about asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims were awarded compensation when the truth was finally disclosed.

In 1973, a single case set off a blaze of litigation throughout the United States. In the next three decades, asbestos lawsuit History tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas, which had favorable laws regarding 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 those exposed to asbestos developed an disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the actions of the company. It paved the way for mass torts, which continue today.

The case also set a very high bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to claim full damages from just one of their employers, rather than several. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal method and began using strategies to reduce their exposure.

These cynical tactics included altering the definition of "exposure" in order to lessen their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not a cause for negligence because exposure can occur from various sources.

Asbestos litigation is still ongoing and there are new asbestos cases being filed every year. In some cases, these claims involve the use of talcum powder, which is a source of asbestos fibers naturally occurring in the environment. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma following using talcum powder in the 1970s and 80s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested a court to unseal Budd's transcript of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman was hoping that the testimony could shed light on Baron & Budd's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy however, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits began to grow. The litigation saga continued for a number of years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws and the asbestos companies are headquartered there.

The defendants fought the plaintiffs' claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated workers, paying them small sums to keep their health issues at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics worked for a short time. The truth was revealed 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 producers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients that they accepted. Kazan Law focused on a smaller portion of workers who were seriously ill with medical proof of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They were successful in a variety of important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the obligation to warn not just for specific products, but also for industrial premises that contained asbestos raw. It was later affirmed in the case of Jeromson in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

Many of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This allowed them to regroup through the courts and set aside funds aside to cover future asbestos-related obligations. 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 prove that the victim worked at a place of work where asbestos was used. This made it more difficult for the legal system to determine exposure and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to determine their clients' asbestos-containing products. Baron & Budd's "coaching memo" was the consequence of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They began to attack victims on different fronts.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of the victims. They claimed that victims suffered from illnesses that were the result of multiple exposures to asbestos by multiple employers, not a single exposure to asbestos lawsuit. It was because asbestos was used in numerous products, and each one posed the risk of exposure to asbestos in its own way. This was a major attack on mesothelioma sufferers' rights because it required them to disclose 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 unjust and insufficient to the injuries that each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and physical injuries. This presented a significant challenge for the insurance industry, as every company was obliged to pay out large sums of money to asbestos patients even if they were not the cause of their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurers also attempted to limit the ability asbestos victims to recover compensation by claiming that they were not entitled to any damages that went beyond their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence demonstrated that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms typically occur 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation initiated one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos lawsuit attorney victims. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a system to secretly coach their clients to focus on particular defendants, and they were often paid by asbestos companies they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trials. An asbestos settlement is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company which ends a legal claim of compensation. It may be reached prior to or after a trial, and is not subject to the same rules as the verdict of a jury.