Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History
Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won more asbestos disease compensation claims than any other law firm. This has been a crucial aspect 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 asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical house on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to make legal history, but this is exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able uncover a long-running scheme that was used to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.
Asbestos lawsuits have their roots in the law of tort which states that a seller or manufacturer of any product may be held responsible for any injury caused by the product if the manufacturer knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research revealed asbestos's harmful effects and linked to not only lung diseases such as asbestosis but also a rare cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers resisted these risks and continued selling their products.
In the 1970s, scientists had developed more accurate tests that confirmed the link between asbestos and health. This resulted in an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to receive significant legal recognition. It was filed in the year 1969 and was decided in 1973.
This case set the stage for many of the asbestos cases to follow. It was the first time that courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue several manufacturers simultaneously.
Texas was the next state that reached the landmark in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the legislature of Texas passed Senate Bill 15. Senate Bill 15 This law required that mesothelioma as well as other asbestos cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of supposition and conjecture from hired gun experts. This was a major advance in the law, which helped calm the firestorm of asbestos lawsuits.
More recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their companies under RICO, which is a federal law designed to catch those who are involved in organized criminal activity. Concerted efforts to conceal evidence, evade and dispose of asbestos waste, hide documents, and other similar strategies have been exposed by courts, leading to a number of RICO convictions for defendants and claimants alike.
The Second Case
Despite asbestos manufacturers knowing the dangers of their products for decades, they continued to put profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to remain quiet about asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims were awarded compensation when the truth was finally revealed.
One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a national litigation firestorm. In the decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A majority of these asbestos lawsuits were brought in Texas which has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.
The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 found asbestos defendants could be held liable when they negligently expose an individual to asbestos, and 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 laid the foundation for the mass tort system that is still in place to this day.
The case also set high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their entire damages from just one employer, rather than multiple employers. Insurance companies realized the possibility of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began to use tactics to limit the exposure.
These cynical tactics included changing 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 a variety of sources.
Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. These cases often involve talcum, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after using talcum powder in the 1970s and 80s.
In the last quarter of 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested that a judge release the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman believed that the testimony would shed light on Baron and Budd's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy however, the trial court refused the request.
The Third Case
Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the wake of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation inferno raged for a number of years. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws, and asbestos-related companies are located there.
The defendants fought against the plaintiffs claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also used manipulative tactics on workers, paying them small sums to keep their health problems at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.
These tactics worked for a time. But the truth came out in the late 1970s when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos company executives. Many workers were in a position asbestos lawsuit compensation 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 took on. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a small number 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 crucial legal rulings, such as Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the obligation to warn not just for specific products however, but also for industrial premises which contained asbestos. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).
In the early 1980s, a number of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to reorganize in court and set money aside to cover future asbestos-related obligations. Sadly, bankruptcy trusts set by these companies continue to compensate asbestos-related damage.
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 on a site where asbestos was utilized. This weakened the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products plaintiffs' lawyers. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was a consequence of this new rule.
The Fourth Case
Following the victory of Clarence Borel, more asbestos victims won their cases. However, asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They began to attack victims on many different areas.
One strategy was to denigrate 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 a single exposure. This was because the companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each was characterized by its own unique asbestos exposure risk. This was a major attack on mesothelioma patients rights since it required them to disclose all of their asbestos-exposured employers.
The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over the issue of compensatory damage. They asserted that the amount paid to asbestos victims was unreasonable and insufficient to the injuries suffered by each victim. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and physical damages. This was a major challenge to the insurance industry because it meant that each company was responsible for paying out large amounts of funds to asbestos victims even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos disease.
Insurers also tried to restrict the right asbestos victims to receive compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to damages beyond the level of the liability insurance coverage of their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence indicates that there is no safe asbestos exposure level and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.
Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation initiated one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a system for secretly instructing their clients to focus on specific defendants, and they were often paid by the asbestos companies they targeted.
Many asbestos cases were settled before or during trial. A settlement involving asbestos is a contract between the victim and asbestos company that ends a legal claim of compensation. The settlement may be reached before, during or after the trial, and is not required to meet the same requirements as jury verdicts.