The Most Underrated Companies To Watch In The Ny Asbestos Litigation Industry
New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma sufferers in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these types of illnesses; symptoms may take decades before they appear.
Judges who oversee the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further erode the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is very different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witnesses. These cases are often based on specific job sites since asbestos was used in the production of a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious diseases like mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique approach to handling asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is controlled by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases that have numerous defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the most prestigious settlements for plaintiffs in recent years.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket in the last few days. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to the foundation when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature over a period of 20 years, while also working at the firm representing plaintiffs Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time supervisor of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amidst reports that she had offered the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who introduced a variety of changes to the docket.
Moulton implemented an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present evidence that their products are not accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. In addition, he instituted the new policy that he did not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was complete. This new rule will greatly impact the pace of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket, and could result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 last week and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to a different District. This will hopefully lead to more efficient and uniform handling of these cases as the current MDL has earned itself reputation for a history of abuse of discovery as well as unjustified sanctions and a lack of evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's connections to asbestos lawyers have finally drawn attention to New York City’s asbestos court, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury case because it involves a number of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also includes similar job sites where workers were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that can clog the dockets of the courts.
To address this issue A number of states have passed laws that restrict the types of claims that can be filed. These laws typically address medical requirements two disease rules expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states continue to experience an influx of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of cases filed and to speed up their resolution, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance is one that requires applicants to meet specific medical criteria, has a two-disease rule and uses an accelerated trial plan.
Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damage awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to stop bad conduct and allow for more compensation to be awarded to victims. It is recommended to consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to learn about the laws that apply to your situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients from claims that claim exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He is also frequently defending cases alleging exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants like noise, mold, vibration and environmental contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Across five counties, mesothelioma victims and their families have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products to recover compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to put profits ahead of public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are experienced in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies may result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long-standing history in New York, and continues to make headlines. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction in which to file mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been impacted by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 on federal corruption charges relating to millions of dollars in referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was fired amid reports that she had given "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment unless they present an "scientifically sound valid, credible and admissible scientific study" that proves the amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove injury to their health from asbestos exposure in order for the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a ruling in early 2016 that held that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.
The most recent case, in which Judge Toal is in charge of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS, claims that the company violated asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS didn't follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to notify and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovations, and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and having a trained representative on site during renovations.
Fayetteville asbestos lawsuit -related personal injury and death cases once filled up federal court dockets and judges' resources were depleted, making it impossible for them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The frenzied litigation hindered the timely payment of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and prompted companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources for defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, after exposure to asbestos at work. The majority of cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction employees, employees and other tradesmen who worked on buildings that were or were made with asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed by asbestos fibers that were dangerous during the process of manufacturing or while working on the structure.
The first major mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from exposure to asbestos filled the courts. This was the case in federal and state court across the country.
These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim their illnesses were the result from the negligence of asbestos manufacturing products. They also claim that companies failed to warn them about the dangers that come with asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, more than half were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible overloaded calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of state and federal cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement or pretrial purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.
Many defendants were involved in other asbestos claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. and successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.