Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

A 1973 court ruling set off a firestorm in asbestos lawsuits. 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 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 was the site of a legal landmark. A retired judge was able to uncover a long-standing scheme to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law, which states that a business is liable for any harm caused by a product if they knew or should have known about the dangers of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved that asbestos was dangerous and could be linked to lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers resisted the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had developed more accurate tests that proved the connection between asbestos and illness. This led to an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to receive significant legal recognition. The case was filed in the year 1969 and was decided in 1973.

This case set the precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. This was the first instance that the courts ruled asbestos manufacturers guilty under strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove the companies committed negligence, and it allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at one time.

Texas was the next state to achieve the landmark in asbestos litigation history. In 2005 the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. This law required mesothelioma cases, as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law that helped calm the firestorm 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 involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos lawsuit payouts waste, conceal documents and other similar tactics. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants as well as claimants.

The Second Case

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

In 1973, a single case set off a blaze of litigation across the country. In the subsequent three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed. Many of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas, which had favorable laws governing asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants can be held liable when they negligently expose the person to asbestos and the person develops an asbestos lawyer lawsuit-related disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and instead towards the actions of the company. It paved the way for mass torts that continue to this day.

The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their entire damages from just one employer instead of multiple employers. Insurance companies quickly realized the benefits of this legal strategy and began to implement strategies to reduce their exposure.

In order to reduce liability, these cynical methods include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not negligent since exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. In some cases, these claims involve the talcum powder that contains 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 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer asked a court to unseal Budd's transcript of his deposition testimony about the coaching memo in the final months of 2016. Biederman hoped that the testimony could shed light on Baron and 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 increase in volume. The litigation firestorm raged on for a long time. Many victims developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws and asbestos-related Lawsuit companies are headquartered there.

The defendants fought back against the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and then publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulate employees, offering small amounts to keep their health concerns at bay and urging employees to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a short time. The truth was exposed in the late 1970s when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma, and other conditions.

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

Lawyers fought asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They won a number of important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the requirement to warn not only for specific products, but also for industrial premises which contained asbestos. It was later upheld in the case of Jeromson in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to regroup in court and put money aside to pay for future asbestos obligations. Unfortunately, the bankruptcy trusts 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 prove that the victim worked on a jobsite at which asbestos was used. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to determine their clients' asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the reason for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

The victory of Clarence Borel led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They began to attack victims on a number of different areas.

One strategy was to challenge the evidence of the victims. They claimed that the ailments of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product had its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a serious attack on the rights of mesothelioma sufferers, because it required them to disclose all their asbestos-exposed employers.

Defense lawyers also began to challenge plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount awarded asbestos victims was excessive and insufficient to the injuries each victim suffered. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their financial, emotional and physical injuries. This presented a significant challenge to the insurance industry since every company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos sufferers even if they didn't cause their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict asbestos victims' rights to be compensated by arguing that the insurance coverage provided by their employer was sufficient at the time of development of mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

One of the most devastating attacks on asbestos victims came from lawyers who specialized in this kind of litigation. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a system for secretly instructing their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid by asbestos firms they targeted.

While some cases went to trial, the majority of victims were able to settle with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is a contract between the victim and asbestos company that settles an legal claim to compensation. The settlement can be reached before, during or asbestos-related lawsuit after the trial. It does not have to satisfy the same requirements as jury verdicts.