The effects of asbestos are long and far-reaching, and many complainants who are able to pinpoint the source of their illness to asbestos exposure have been successful in asbestos litigation. Many companies are ready to fight against the lawsuits, however, resulting in protracted cases and claims left unsettled for long periods of time. In this case, the services of lawyers experienced in asbestos litigation are obtained.

The initial process involves information gathering, which entails learning more and analyzing the complainants’ work and life history to ascertain that he or she was indeed exposed to asbestos due a company’s to irresponsible actions; a medical assessment is also undertaken. Even people who are extremely ill can receive legal representation and have their case brought to court. When a case is determined to be viable, it is then filed against companies that may be responsible for the exposure; these companies include mining companies and contractors.

Because of the number of asbestos claims brought to court, it generally takes time for a case to be settled, and the sheer number of complaints and resolved lawsuits has forced many companies to their knees financially, due to the amount they pay for settlements and compensation. As a result, many companies have set aside funds for asbestos litigation, and the lack of funds has lowered some settlement amounts.

Over the years, asbestos litigation has been a shaky ground to walk on because of the number of frivolous lawsuits being filed by unscrupulous individuals who file asbestos claims with the intention of making money. This makes asbestos litigation even more difficult for legitimate claimants, who are saddled with the responsibility of proving the veracity of their claims in greater detail.

Should a claimant pass away before the case is settled, his or her family or heirs can pursue a wrongful death lawsuit, and also file additional claims and damages. If the case is settled, they will be entitled to receive the claimant’s compensation.

Borel v. Fibreboard Corporation was known for notably changing the litigation process of asbestos cases. The case was the first in the country to recognize the responsibility of the manufacturer to give warnings on the danger of asbestos. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion that Judge John Minor Wisdom issued in the case expanded the doctrine of strict product liability to asbestos related illnesses as effects of insulation materials use. This resulted to waves of asbestos related personal injury litigations to flood the American court system.  

The Bell v. Dresser Industries, Inc. case is one of the largest asbestos verdicts in the country. In this case, a group of Alabama plaintiffs asserted that their former employer, U.S. Pipe, allowed them to be exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. They claimed that they have become infected with asbestosis as they have been exposed to the asbestos contained in the spray products mixed by their former employer. The equipment that their former employer made them use was from Dresser Industries. They also claimed that Dresser Industries, an asbestos manufacturer that sold asbestos by products, had known for several years that asbestos was a carcinogen and yet they have failed to warn users of the danger.  

All five men were diagnosed with asbestosis. At the same time, four of them were also found infected with other types of cancer. Two of them eventually died. The jury came to an 11-1 vote and awarded the plaintiffs $130 million after determining negligence, defective products, and inadequate warnings as to each defendant.  

Another influential asbestos case that reached the Supreme Court was Walters vs. W.R. Grace. The first court issued a decision requiring W.R. Grace to pay compensatory damages sought by Thomas Waters but struck the punitive damages claim as the defendant still had to pay punitive damages in previous cases. However, the appellate court ruled that W.R. Grace indeed has to pay the compensatory damages and that the first court should not have taken out the punitive damages. W.R. Grace asked for leniency as it has already been penalized for those damaged and gave warnings to the court about overkill and not advancing the spirit of punishment and deterrence.  

The Supreme Court ruled that the jury should hear evidence on negligence, compensatory damages, and punitive damages liability in phase one of the trial. In phase two of the trial, the same jury should ascertain the amount of punitive damages.  

Other than precedents, amendments in and new state laws also continue to shape the whole process of asbestos litigation. As long as asbestos cases are being heard in courts of law, the statutes, torts, opinions, and principles revolving around them will continue to undergo development.