Workers were not told the truth about the serious health dangers of asbestos, until labor leaders and attorneys started filing lawsuits.

For many years, companies sold asbestos-laced products, even though they knew as early as 1899 that this mineral causes serious health problems. These companies covered up the risks of diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis so they could keep using these cheap products. The asbestos coverup finally began unraveling in the 1960s, when victims filed the first toxic exposure lawsuits.

Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive form of lung cancer. A tumor that forms in the membrane between the heart and lungs is very difficult to detect. Because of the delayed diagnosis, these tumors are often untreatable. Asbestosis is an equally serious disease. Asbestos fibers cause inflammation in the lungs. This inflammation closes tiny airways, many of which are about the size of a pencil’s tip. As the disease progresses, victims almost literally suffocate.

Asbestos litigation has changed over the years, as outlined below. However, the commitment and approach of an asbestos exposure lawyer hasn’t changed. 

Attorneys are committed to maximum compensation for victims. This compensation usually includes money for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. Additional punitive damages are usually available as well.

As for the approach, at AsbestosClaims.Law, our legal team thoroughly analyzes your case, diligently collects evidence, and then strongly stands up for you.

Asbestos Litigation from the 1960s Through 1970s

The first asbestos exposure lawsuit was filed in 1966. Claude Tomplait claimed that Johns-Manville, Fibreboard, and Owens Corning Fiberglas, three of the largest asbestos providers in the world, were responsible for his asbestosis. In 1969, a jury returned a verdict for the defendants in less than a week. 

Ward Stephenson – The First Attorney to Challenge the Asbestos Industry

Instead of giving up, Mr. Tomplait’s lawyer, Ward Stephenson, filed a similar case on behalf of another victim, Clarence Borel, in 1969. This time, a jury awarded the victim over $79,000. Mr. Stephenson died shortly before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict and opened the floodgates of asbestos litigation.

Five years later a California court ruled that asbestos exposure victims could file civil claims, even if the state had an “exclusive remedy” workers’ compensation law that normally limits legal options. 

During that lawsuit, an attorney asked a plant manager if there had been “a policy in the company…not to talk to the employee about chest findings, findings that suggested asbestosis, pneumoconiosis or mesothelioma.” He responded, “Yes, it was policy.” It was known as the hush hush policy. The evidence of fraud and conspiracy started to emerge.

Also in the 1970s, Congress passed environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, that regulated airborne asbestos levels.

Asbestos Litigation from the 1980s Through 1990s

Between 1982 and 1985, many more lawsuits were filed, and nearly all of them resulted in plaintiff victories. Furthermore, the amount of punitive damages increased, including a $2 million verdict for an 81 year-old retired brake mechanic who was dying of mesothelioma.

On a related note, in the 1990s, asbestos litigation began including environmental (ambient) exposure victims, mostly homemakers who were exposed to asbestos while doing the laundry or other household chores. More on that below.

Fideicomisos de Quiebra de Asbesto

In response, many asbestos manufacturers, including Johns-Mansvile, filed bankruptcy. These companies hoped these filings would enable them to avoid legal liability, restructure, and remain in business.

But federal bankruptcy judges smelled a rat. So, as a condition of these bankruptcy filings, they ordered these companies to create massive victim compensation funds. These orders had two profound effects. First, they created a faster and easier way for victims to obtain compensation for their injuries. Second, these orders put many companies out of business permanently, so they could no longer put people at risk for the sake of higher profits.

The legal landscape began shifting in the mid 1990s. For twelve years, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had appointed largely pro-business judges to the federal bench. In later years, these judges began cracking down on what they believed were abusive lawsuits.

Asbestos Litigation from the 2000s Through 2020s

Largely because of these changes, business groups pushed “tort reform” measures in the early 2000s. As mentioned, asbestos providers usually look for fast and cheap solutions. They learned that influencing the legislative process was faster and cheaper than fighting lawsuits in court. Most tort reform measures limit damages and/or create procedural obstacles for victims. 

Corporations funded and created the ‘Tort Reform’ Industry to escape liability for hurting people with their products.

These tort reform measures profoundly affected asbestos exposure litigation. Cases became more difficult to win, and damages significantly decreased. As a result, many attorneys, who were attracted to the possibility of an easy win and a large verdict, stopped handling asbestos exposure matters. Attorneys that remain in this field are die-hards who put client health and safety above money and profits.

The environment changed so much that many asbestos companies went on the offensive. In several jurisdictions, asbestos companies filed civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims against unscrupulous lawyers who submitted false information to courts. 

These RICO claims, although largely unsuccessful, enabled companies to sway public opinion against “greedy lawyers.” That swing led to more tort reform measures, and the downward spiral continued.

However, the news from this period wasn’t all bad. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency banned domestic asbestos mining. This ban increased the cost of asbestos, making it a less attractive building material. This ban also served as an official health warning about the widespread dangers of asbestos exposure.

Asbestos Litigation beyond the 2020s

Asbestos litigation has shifted before, and because of certain developments in the early 2020s, it appears that it will shift again in the future.

Asbestos Ban

In 2024, the EPA proposed a complete asbestos ban. This ban will most certainly protect people in the future, but for much of the 21st century, it may increase the number of asbestos exposure lawsuits.

Asbestos is harmless as long as it’s contained. A building might be packed with asbestos in the attic, but as long as no one disturbs the asbestos and no hairline ceiling cracks allow it to escape into the air, no one is at risk.

The proposed asbestos ban would most likely require complete asbestos removal and disposal, regardless of the health hazard. A single, microscopic fiber could cause one of the aforementioned diseases. Therefore, demolition, renovation, and disposal workers will face considerable exposure risks, especially if, as the amount of work increases, their employers start taking shortcuts.

Mesothelioma and asbestosis have about a fifty-year latency period. So, workers who remove asbestos in the 2030s may not know they’re sick until at least the 2080s.

Indirect Ambient Exposure

We discussed direct ambient exposure (take-home asbestos exposure) above. Such exposure is still a risk. Indirect ambient exposure, specifically from the Twin Towers collapse, could be an even larger risk.

On 9/11, a toxic cloud blanketed one of the most densely-populated areas of New York City, which is one of the most densely-populated cities in the world. Because they breathed so much asbestos-laced smoke, many 9/11 first responders are already getting sick. Bystanders, who were exposed to a lesser amount of asbestos, might not get sick for many years to come.

The government created several large victim compensation funds, which will be available for the foreseeable future. But they will probably be unavailable when another wave of 9/11-related asbestos exposure cases begins around mid-century. 

According to an old saying in the law, where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy. So, these victims will be entitled to compensation. However, it’s unclear what entity will be legally responsible for that compensation.

Talc Litigation

Asbestos and talc particles often intermingle, usually during the extraction process. Talc mines are often intermingled with asbestos mines. Unless manufacturers have rigorous quality control practices, the fibers often intermingle in finished products.

The ongoing asbestos-talcum powder lawsuits might only be the tip of the iceberg. Talc is a very common ingredient in a long list of products, like:

  • Roofing materials,
  • Children’s toys,
  • Roofing materials,
  • Paper,
  • Rubber,
  • Makeup,
  • Paint,
  • Polished rice,
  • Plastics,
  • Insecticides,
  • Pharmaceutical pills,
  • Ceramics,
  • Crayons,
  • Chewing gum, and 
  • Dietary supplements.

Most people use at least two or three of these products almost everyday. If the talc is tainted with asbestos, these people handle asbestos every day.

Additionally, based on talcum powder lawsuits, punitive damages could be much higher in these cases. In October 2021, a California jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $25 million in punitive damages.