Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

In the wake of a 1973 court decision a firestorm of asbestos lawsuits was sparked. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of non-impaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973 the neoclassical limestone structure on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District became the site of a legal landmark. A retired judge was able to uncover a long-running scheme that was used to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos-related lawsuits have their origins in the law of tort which stipulates that a manufacturer or Asbestos lawsuit after death seller of any product can be held accountable for any harm caused by the product if the manufacturer knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated asbestos's dangers and could be linked to lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

By the 1970s, researchers had developed more precise tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos and disease. This led to a dramatic 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 ruled in 1973.

This case was a precedent for many other asbestos lawyer lawsuit cases that would follow. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove the companies had committed negligence and allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at the same time.

The next major event in the history of asbestos lawsuits occurred in the state Texas. In 2005, the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a significant change in the law and has helped stop the raging asbestos litigation.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their firms under RICO, which is a federal law that was designed to catch those involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, hide documents and other similar strategies. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions for defendants and the plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos producers being aware of the dangers of their products for decades and decades, they put profits over safety. They even paid workers to conceal their exposure to asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers received damages when the truth was finally exposed.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a national litigation blaze. In the three decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held responsible for damages if they negligently exposed someone to asbestos and that those exposed to asbestos developed an disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the company's actions and paved the way for the mass tort system that continues today.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos personal injury lawsuit victims, which allowed them to claim full damages from just one of their employers instead of several. Insurers realized the potential of a legal method to limit asbestos exposure and began employing strategies to limit it.

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 did not constitute negligence, as exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and there are new asbestos cases being filed every year. These claims sometimes involve Talcum, a substance that naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma because of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 80s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court unseal Budd's transcript of his deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman hoped that the testimony would shed light on Baron & Budd's role in mesothelioma's 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 war raged for a long time. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and also because the asbestos companies were headquartered there.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers to support their defenses. They also manipulated their workers, paying them small sums to keep their health problems quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a short period of time. However, the truth exploded 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. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients they took on. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller number of seriously ill employees who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They won a number crucial legal rulings, such as Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn was applicable not just to specific products but to industrial premises where raw asbestos lawsuit after death (Asbestos-exposure-lawsuit93508.Full-design.Com) was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

Several of the largest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This gave them the opportunity to organize themselves through court proceedings and set funds aside for future asbestos obligations. Unfortunately the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies are still paying asbestos-related damages to the present.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was sufficient to show that the victim was on a jobsite at which asbestos was used. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products lawyers representing plaintiffs. This new rule was the reason for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims on different areas.

One strategy was to denigrate the evidence of victims. They claimed that the illnesses of victims were caused by multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, and not only one exposure. This was because the companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product was characterized by its own unique asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious attack on mesothelioma victims rights since it required them to disclose all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos lawsuit attorneys victims was excessive and out of proportion to the harms suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and asbestos lawsuit after death physical damages. This was a major problem to the insurance industry since every company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos sufferers even if they did not cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict asbestos victims' rights to receive compensation by claiming that their employer's insurance coverage was adequate at the time of mesothelioma's onset. Medical evidence indicates that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

One of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims came from lawyers who were specialized in this kind of litigation. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also created a process to secretly coach their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid to do so by asbestos firms they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trials. An asbestos settlement is a deal between the victim and the asbestos company to settle an legal claim for compensation. The settlement can be reached before, during or after the trial, and does not have to meet the same requirements as jury verdicts.