Asbestos attorneys drive another company into bankruptcy – Madison County Record

Three  years in the past, whereas affirming an appeals courtroom determination overturning a multimillion-greenback judgment towards Georgia Pacific in a mesothelioma case, the Texas State Supreme Court made the next assertions: that “proof of ‘any exposure’ to a defendant’s product will not suffice” to determine legal responsibility, that “the dose must be quantified,” and that “the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s disease.”

It was a soundly argued determination, establishing affordable standards for assigning blame. Unfortunately, in jurisdictions like ours, unreasonable standards prevail, as Georgia Pacific can attest.

This previous July, the company underwent a company restructuring in order that one among its former divisions, Bestwall Gypsum, might turn into a separate entity and file for bankruptcy independently, which it did three weeks in the past within the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Prior to 1978, GP/Bestwall manufactured and bought a joint compound product that “exposed only a limited population to small amounts of chrysotile asbestos.” Furthermore, joint compound merchandise represented lower than 2 % of all asbestos-containing merchandise manufactured and bought within the nation.

As corporations making extra prevalent, extra poisonous asbestos merchandise went beneath, nevertheless, consideration turned to – and an undue burden fell on – GP/Bestwall, which was named in roughly 80 % of mesothelioma instances during the last 5 years.

“The massive increase in the number of claims against, and the size of the plaintiffs’ settlement demands… have been driven by various interrelated shortcomings of and abuses in the tort system,” attorney Garland Casada of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson in Charlotte, N.C. stated within the bankruptcy petition.

Casada cited a 2005 Madison County case that Georgia Pacific settled with a plaintiff who subsequently submitted 21 belief claims and ballots in 9 bankruptcy instances based mostly on exposures and merchandise not disclosed throughout litigation.

That sort of quick-dealing on the a part of plaintiffs and attorneys is unfair to the companies focused – and a disservice to real victims.

Source link

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.