Asbestos Lawsuit History

Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone through bankruptcy, and victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal actions in their cases.

The Supreme Court of the United States has heard numerous asbestos-related cases. The court has handled cases involving class action settlements that attempted to limit liability.

Anna Pirskowski

Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the early 1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a well-known case. Her case was significant due to the fact that it sparked asbestos lawsuits against a variety of manufacturers and helped spark an increase in claims from those diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other diseases. The lawsuits against these companies resulted in the creation of trust funds which have been used by companies that have gone bankrupt to pay compensation for asbestos-related sufferers. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as pain and suffering.

In addition to the many deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, those who are exposed to the substance often bring it home to their families. In this case, the family members inhale the fibers, causing them to suffer from the same ailments similar to those who were exposed. These symptoms include chronic respiratory ailments, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Many asbestos companies knew that asbestos was dangerous but they minimized the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies to enter their buildings to install warning signs. The company's own research, meanwhile, showed that asbestos was carcinogenic as early as the 1930s.

OSHA was founded in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. At this point doctors and health experts were already trying to alert people to asbestos' dangers. These efforts were mostly successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted demands for a more strict regulation.

Despite the fact asbestos has been banned from the United States, the mesothelioma problem continues to be a major concern for people across the country. Asbest is still present in businesses and homes even in buildings built prior to the 1970s. It is crucial that people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related condition get legal advice. An experienced lawyer can help them get the compensation they deserve. They will be able to comprehend the complicated laws that apply to this kind of case, and will ensure that they receive the most favorable result.

Claude Tomplait

Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, brought the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. His lawsuit alleged that they failed to warn of the dangers of their insulation products. This important case opened the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed.

Most asbestos lawsuits are brought on behalf of people who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing materials. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers and plumbers are among those who have been affected. Some of these workers are now suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved relatives.

A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer can result in millions dollars in damages. These funds are used to pay past and future medical costs loss of wages, suffering and pain. This money can also be used to pay for travel costs funeral and burial costs, and loss companionship.

Asbestos litigation forced many companies to bankruptcy and established asbestos trust fund to pay victims. The litigation has also put a strain on federal and state courts. Additionally it has sucked up countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.

The asbestos litigation was an expensive and lengthy process that spanned many decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and expensive process that spanned decades. However it was successful in uncovering asbestos lawsuit executives who had hid the truth about asbestos for many years. They knew about the dangers, and they pressured workers not to speak out about their health problems.

After several years of hearings and appeals and appeal, the court was in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was in reference to the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injury to the consumer or user of his product when the product is supplied in a defective condition unaccompanied by adequate warning."

Following the decision the defendants were ordered to pay the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. Watson passed away before her final award could be made by the court. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court's decision.

Clarence Borel

In the latter half of 1950 asbestos insulators such as Borel began to complain of breathing issues and the thickening of their fingers tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed claims for workers' compensation. However, asbestos companies minimized the health risks of asbestos exposure. The truth would only be more widely known in the 1960s, when more medical research connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the risks associated with their products. He claimed that he contracted mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled that the defendants were required to warn.

The defendants claim that they did nothing wrong because they were aware of the dangers of asbestos long before 1968. They cite testimony from experts that asbestosis doesn't show itself until fifteen or twenty, or even 25 years after the initial exposure to asbestos. If the experts are right the defendants could have been responsible for injuries that other workers might have been affected by asbestos before Borel.

The defendants also claim that they aren't responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma, as it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing materials. They ignore the evidence collected by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' businesses were aware about asbestos's dangers for decades and suppressed the risk information.

The 1970s saw an increase in asbestos-related litigation, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and thousands of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. As a result of the litigation, numerous asbestos-related companies filed for bankruptcy and established trust funds to pay for victims of their asbestos-related ailments. As the litigation grew, it became evident that asbestos companies were responsible for the damage caused by toxic substances. As a result the asbestos industry was forced into a change in how they operated. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled for millions of dollars.

Stanley Levy

Stanley Levy is the author of several articles that have been published in journals of scholarly research. He has also given talks on these subjects at various seminars and legal conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has served on various committees dealing with asbestos and mesothelioma. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.

The firm is charged a fee of 33 percent plus costs for the compensations it receives for its clients. It has secured some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22,000,000 settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at the New York City Steel Plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed claims for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases.

Despite this success, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and inflating the statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response, the firm launched a public defence fund and is currently seeking donations from private individuals as well as companies.

Another issue is the fact that a lot of defendants are attempting to undermine the worldwide consensus of science that asbestos even at very low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have used funds paid by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" to write papers in journals of academic research that support their arguments.

In addition to arguing about the scientific consensus on asbestos, lawyers are also focused on other aspects of the case. They are arguing, for instance regarding the constructive notice required to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim had actual knowledge of asbestos's dangers in order to be eligible for compensation. They also argue over the compensation ratios of various asbestos lawyers-related diseases.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that there is a significant public interest in granting compensation to those who suffer from mesothelioma and related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the risks, and must be held responsible.