Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits in a blaze was sparked. The cases were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It seems an unlikely place to record legal history, however, this is exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this point that a judge resurfaced on the bench after his retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to defraud defendant companies and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits are rooted in the tort law which stipulates that the seller or manufacturer of any product can be held liable for any injury caused by the product if it knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved that asbestos was dangerous and was linked to not just lung disease like asbestosis but also to a rare type of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the dangers and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had created more precise tests to prove the connection between asbestos and illness. This resulted in an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case to win significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. The case was filed in 1969 and was decided in 1973.

This case was a precedent for many other asbestos cases that would follow. This was the first instance that the courts ruled asbestos producers guilty of strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove that the companies acted negligently as it allowed victims to sue multiple manufacturers at one time.

Texas was the next state that reached a major milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the legislature of Texas passed Senate Bill 15 This 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 advance in the law that helped reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO. This is a federal law designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activity. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, evade and dispose of asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar tactics have been exposed by the courts, leading to numerous RICO convictions for both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers that asbestos products posed for decades, companies kept putting profits ahead of safety. They even bribed workers to hide their exposure to asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged, tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a nation-wide litigation firestorm. In the following three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of these asbestos lawsuits asbestos were filed in the state of Texas which had favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma settlement defendants could be held accountable if they negligently expose an individual to asbestos and that this person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the company's actions. It paved the way for mass torts that continue today.

The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to claim their full damages from only one employer instead of many. Insurance companies quickly realized the benefits of this legal method and began to implement strategies to limit their exposure.

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

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. In some cases these cases, they involve the talcum powder that contains naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma following using talcum powder during the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer asked a court to open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in the final months of 2016. Biederman believed that the testimony would provide insight into Baron and Budd's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy, but the trial court refused the request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits began to increase in volume. The litigation saga raged for many years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws, and the asbestos companies are located in Texas.

The defendants fought back the plaintiffs' claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated employees by paying them small amounts to keep their health concerns secret and urging them to sign confidentiality contracts.

These strategies were effective for a time. However, the truth was revealed in the late 1970s, when lawyers for the victims revealed the Sumner Simpson papers and asbestos cancer Lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma Settlement the ruthless behavior of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

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

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' efforts 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 buildings that contained asbestos raw. It was later affirmed in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

A number of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This allowed them to regroup in court and put money aside to cover future asbestos obligations. However the trusts in bankruptcy created by these companies are still paying out asbestos-related claims today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was necessary to show that the victim was at a place of work where asbestos was employed. This undermined the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products plaintiffs' lawyers. This new rule was the reason for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

After the victory of Clarence Borel more Asbestos cancer lawsuit Lawyer mesothelioma settlement victims won their lawsuits. But asbestos companies began fight back in order to ensure their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to challenge the evidence of victims. They claimed that the victims had illnesses caused by multiple exposures to asbestos from many employers and not one exposure. This was because companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product was characterized by its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a serious attack on the rights of mesothelioma patients, since it required them to identify all asbestos-exposed employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over compensatory damage. They claimed that the amount paid to asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma victims was too high and not in proportion to the suffering each victim endured. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their financial, emotional and physical injuries. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance industry as each company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos victims even if they did not cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurers also tried to restrict the rights of asbestos victims to receive compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to any damages that were beyond the amount of the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they grew mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that symptoms of mesothelioma usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation have launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma victims. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file them in bulk, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a shady coaching system to help their clients target specific defendants. Often, asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trial. An asbestos settlement is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company that ends an legal claim to compensation. The settlement can be reached before, asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma settlement during or after the trial and is not required to meet the same standards as jury verdicts.