42 Years - A Professional Law Corporation - Helping Asbestos Victims Since 1974

Kazan Law

How Much Money Can You Receive From an Asbestos Lawsuit?

asbestos lawsuitNobody initiates a lawsuit unless they think they will obtain some money from it and an asbestos lawsuit is no different. In fact, because of the irrevocable harm done to you from wrongful asbestos exposure and the devastating consequences of developing an asbestos-caused illness like mesothelioma, the stakes in an asbestos lawsuit can be higher than most.

Standard of proof
Asbestos lawsuits are civil cases not criminal cases even though you may feel that what was done to you was criminal. In most civil cases, as described in a California courts website, the judge or jury has to make a decision about which side wins based on a standard called “preponderance of the evidence.” This means that, if the case is decided in your favor, your side of the story is more likely true than not. It does not mean that one side brought in more evidence than the other side. It means that one side’s evidence was more believable than the other’s.

In some cases, the standard for reaching a decision is “clear and convincing evidence.” This means that, for the decision to be made in your favor, you have to prove that your version of the facts is highly probably or reasonably certain, or “substantially more likely than not.”

How large a settlement or judgment can you expect to be awarded?

How much money you might be awarded in an asbestos lawsuit depends on many factors, such as the medical evidence that confirms your diagnosis, how seriously you have been injured, your actual and potential losses, the identification of the asbestos products that you were exposed to, the companies that made these products, and their financial resources. With all the variables, it is impossible to answer this question with specific amounts without knowing more about your potential claim, and you should be suspicious of any lawyer who tells you “how much” on your first meeting.

I can’t speak for other mesothelioma law firms but at Kazan Law, we do not take a case unless we believe the facts are strongly in your favor. Because of our strong track record, most of our cases get settled entirely out of court.

We keep our clients’ settlement amounts confidential to protect their privacy. Defendants who pay our clients prefer confidentiality because if word got out other plaintiff lawyers would try to get as much as we do and then the defendants would not have as much cash with which to pay our next client!

Verdicts are a matter of public record. In recent years, several of our clients have received significant verdict awards ranging from about $5 million to $27 million. For specific amounts on trial verdicts and appellate decisions you can refer to our website.

Asbestos Victim Wins a Landmark Case

asbestos victimAsbestos victim Robert Alan Speake was “in frail health and breathing with difficulty,” according to the December 1, 1981 article in the San Francisco Chronicle.   But he stood up for his day in court, a day that marked a major change in the tragic history of asbestos victims and the businesses and individuals who exploited their innocence for financial gain.

As ill as he was on that day, Speake stood up on behalf of not only himself but all asbestos victims. And standing with him there in Contra Costa County Superior Court on that day was me. I would go on to fight on behalf of asbestos victims for the next several decades – a fight I continue to this day. But on that day in 1981, we were breaking new legal ground.

I was helping to represent Speake in his lawsuit against the giant Johns-Manville Corp. family of companies which he blamed for his fatal illness.

Speake , 66 at the time, was an asbestos worker for 33 years at Johns-Manville’s Pittsburg plant. We maintained that the executives knew of the health hazards of working with asbestos as early as the 1930s but hid the information from their employees. Bob said they never told him anything and I believed him.

Speake, who had to take early retirement because of his declining health, was suffering from asbestosis, a disease of the lungs, caused by his work environment. Johns-Manville’s lawyers tried to blame the victim and claimed his illness was caused by smoking.

I didn’t buy that. The article quotes me as saying that Johns-Manville acted in “willful and conscious disregard” by never telling workers of the dangers.

“Bob Speake should have had the opportunity to say, I’m going to get out of here and get a safe job, before his health began to deteriorate,” I told the court.

I showed evidence revealing that the company had kept secret the results of X-rays and exams showing signs of asbestos-caused damage in Speake as early as the 1950s.

I sought not only lost pay for Speake, but also substantial punitive damages to make an example of Johns-Manville so others would be spared the fate that was Bob Speake’s.

We succeeded in making an example of Johns-Manville. Their name came to be synonymous with the scandal of asbestos exposure and callous disregard for human life. They went into bankruptcy several months later, right before our next group of mesothelioma lawsuits for their plant workers was set for trial. But we did not succeed in sparing others from Bob Speake’s fate. Greed never learns its lesson. And so we continue to fight on behalf of asbestos victims.

Who Do You Sue in an Asbestos Lawsuit?

asbestos lawsuit People often ask me, “How do I file an asbestos lawsuit? What should I do first?”

When you are considering going to court to file an asbestos lawsuit, the first thing you need to do is figure out exactly whom you should sue. This may seem like a simple issue, but it can be very complicated.

If you get into a car accident you would sue the person who was driving the car that hit you. But it is not always that simple. For instance, what if the driver of the car does not own the car and was just borrowing it? In that case, you would also want to sue the owner of the car, since the car insurance probably would be in the owner’s name. So, in this example, you would file your lawsuit against two people, the driver and the owner.

Who is at Fault in an Asbestos Lawsuit?

Asbestos cases can be like that. But even more challenging. Unfortunately the symptoms of illness caused by asbestos exposure emerge decades after the exposure has taken place. This can make it more difficult to track down who is responsible for causing you harm. Say you worked for a brake repair shop where you worked with brake pads that contained asbestos. That was 20 or 30 years ago. The shop may be gone now and the owner deceased. Who manufactured the brake pads? Is the company still around? Have they been bought by another company? Have they gone bankrupt and created a trust to settle lawsuits like the one you intend to file?

As you can see, figuring out exactly who to sue is not always straightforward.  Once you determine whom to sue, you need to find enough basic information about that person or organization for an asbestos lawsuit to have standing. Options for compensation will include asbestos trust funds, settlements or going to trial and reaching a verdict.

You can find additional general information on the California Courts website. Or you can consult a lawyer who specializes in asbestos lawsuits. We would be honored if you choose to contact us – at no charge to you.

As Abraham Lincoln, who also was a lawyer, wisely said, “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

Landmark Appellate Victory In Favor of Victims of Take Home Asbestos Exposure

take home asbestos exposureIn a landmark victory decision that may offer hope for justice to all victims of take home asbestos exposure, a California court of appeal has ruled that a case of take home asbestos exposure that had been dismissed now can be reinstated and move forward to trial.

Kazan Law is pleased to announce that the court of appeal reversed a lower court’s ruling that would have dismissed a take home asbestos case against Pneumo Abex, a manufacturer of asbestos brakes, brought by Johnny Kesner, who was exposed to asbestos dust brought home from the Abex plant by his uncle, an employee there.  (Kesner v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (May 15, 2014) First Dist., Div. 3, Nos. A136378 and A136416).

Kazan Law of-counsel attorney Ted W. Pelletier joined trial counsel from the firm Weitz & Luxenberg to successfully argue the case before the Court of Appeal.

The appeal court decision is of special significance because it is the first one to limit a previous court decision that prevented the owner of a piece of property from being held liable for harmful take home asbestos exposures that resulted from the work done on the property.

That decision, Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, was issued in November 2012. It determined that Ford was not responsible for asbestos exposure to family members brought home on the clothes of workers installing asbestos-containing insulation while constructing a new Ford factory on the property. The workers were employed by the contractor hired to build the factory not by Ford itself.

Since then, companies successfully argued that this decision applies to them even though they do not merely own the premises but also actually cause asbestos exposure by manufacturing asbestos products or performing the work that released the asbestos dust.  Many trial courts, lacking further guidance, have applied the Campbell decision to these cases, depriving asbestos exposure victims of the right to pursue their claims against those responsible.

Kazan Law just helped change that. We helped convince the court that Pneumo Abex, who both owned the land and used it to manufacture asbestos-containing brake products, knowingly exposed its employee George Kesner, Johnny Kesner’s uncle, to asbestos dust that he regularly brought home on his clothes.

In a significant step, the appeal court will publish this decision thus making it binding throughout the state. This published decision will provide much-needed guidance to the trial courts in cases involving a defendant who actively created the asbestos exposure hazard that caused injury and who also happened to own the premises where it happened.

When Should You File an Asbestos Lawsuit?

asbestos lawsuitAs an mesothelioma lawyer, a key question I am often asked is, “When should I file an asbestos lawsuit?” It is a very important question because when it comes to an asbestos lawsuit, timing is everything.

Filing an asbestos lawsuit shouldn’t be done before evidence of harm from asbestos exposure can be verified. Simply being exposed to asbestos is not sufficient grounds to file an asbestos lawsuit on your behalf. And anyone who tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth.

But filing an asbestos lawsuit shouldn’t be done too late either. Certain deadlines (called statutes of limitations) may apply.

At Kazan Law, we believe that a suit should be filed only if a client has mesothelioma or another serious asbestos-related disease – one that prevents him or her from working or interferes in the ability to perform the usual activities of daily living.

If you have been exposed to asbestos, but have not been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, we recommend that you:

  • monitor your health carefully
  • tell your doctor that you have been exposed to asbestos
  • seek medical attention promptly if you feel unwell
  • find out more about asbestos-related diseases and their symptoms

If you have received a diagnosis of mesothelioma or asbestosis, it is time to call a lawyer. Mesothelioma and asbestosis are not genetic. Nor are they self-caused by risky behavior like smoking. You receive a mesothelioma diagnosis because someone else chose to put you and your family at risk by exposing you to asbestos. Someone else chose to immerse you in toxic asbestos dust that entered your lungs or entered the lungs of your spouse or children when they came into contact with asbestos dust. You are owed compensation, whether that be via a mesothelioma settlement, asbestos trust fund or a favorable verdict.

When you are diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness, it is time to contact an asbestos lawyer. I hope you will call Kazan Law.

American Law Month: Why Democracy Matters For Asbestos Lawsuits

American Law MonthAs a lawyer who brings asbestos lawsuits, I am keenly aware of the rights every American citizen has under the laws of the land and how they protect us. If you have been harmed by asbestos exposure, you can seek justice under the law even if powerful business interests are responsible for causing you that harm.  How is that possible? Because we live in a democracy where every vote matters.

In many countries around the world, laws do not protect workers. Factories explode, machinery lack safety features, toxic fumes poison the air. Workers die and their families have no recourse. But here in the United States, we vote. Although we may not vote directly ourselves on asbestos regulations and other environmental and occupational safety issues, we vote for men and women we know will safeguard our health and well-being in Congress. We vote for those who will defend our interests against business interests that would seek to exploit us.

“American Democracy and the Rule of Law: Why Every Vote Matters” was the theme for this year’s May 1 American Law Day initiative established by the American Bar Association.

One of the key reasons this theme was chosen for this year is because we are approaching the 50th anniversaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These remain phenomenal achievements in legislation because they strengthen the right of every eligible
American to vote regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender.

Here in Alameda County, California where Kazan Law has practiced asbestos law since 1974, these legislative anniversaries and the ideals they represent are so highly cherished, that the County Board of Supervisors has declared that May will be celebrated as American Law Month.

I believe their spirit is reflected in this statement from the ABA:

One of our most cherished national ideals, expressed eloquently by Abraham Lincoln, is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” It is a principle enshrined in our Nation’s founding documents, from the Declaration of Independence’s assurance that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, to the opening three words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, “We the People.”

Honoring the 2014 Broussard Scholarship Recipients

Broussard Scholarship

Steven Kazan with Mrs. Broussard and the three Broussard scholars–Andrew Demirchyan, Christine Wenqi Fan and Wenyue Chrisdo Fan.

One of the ways we give back at Kazan Law is by helping bright deserving young people become the lawyers of tomorrow. This week we were pleased to once again see this goal reach fruition when the recipients of the 2014 Broussard Scholarship were honored at the Law Day Student Luncheon as part of the annual Alameda County Superior Court and the Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Foundation co-sponsored Alameda County Superior Court Law Day.

As Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Allen E. Broussard Law School Scholarship Foundation for over a decade, it is an honor each year to present three or more academically well qualified students from economically deprived backgrounds with a $5,000 scholarship. This award is the largest private scholarship award for law students attending California Bay Area law schools.

Our firm’s foundation is proud to help support the Broussard Scholarship Fund which was established in 1996, to honor the memory of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Allen E. Broussard, and was incorporated in 1999. The goal of the Scholarship Fund is to continue Justice Broussard’s work to assist law students from underrepresented minority backgrounds pursue a career in the legal profession.

The 2014 Broussard Scholarship Award Recipients

Andrew Demirchyan is starting his second year as a student at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. His goal is to support marginalized communities by working in land use and employment law. He comes from a family of Armenian immigrants and put himself through UCLA by working two jobs and graduated magna cum laude.

Christine Wenqi Fan emigrated from China at age 9 not knowing English yet excelled in her American education and graduated from UC Irvine. After graduation, Christine plans on dedicating herself to international legal advocacy, counseling clients both in the U.S. and across international borders. Ms. Fan happens to be the twin sister of our next Broussard Scholar.

Wenyue Chrisdo Fan graduated from UC Davis and worked for the Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services as a liaison to vulnerable families in need of public services. She also moved to the Los Angeles area from China and is dedicated to advocating for underrepresented and economically disadvantaged communities. Both sisters will attend Hastings starting this fall.

Sadly Saying Farewell to Judge Henry Ramsey Jr.

Judge Henry Ramsey Jr.

Judge Henry Ramsey Jr.

As an asbestos attorney with years of experience, I’ve gotten to know a lot of judges. Some good; some great. Recently we lost a great one. Judge Henry Ramsey Jr. He was 80 years old and retired. But he continued to actively work with the nonprofits that meant so much to him – those that helped minority kids from poor backgrounds get on the right track. Because he had once been one of those kids, too.

I went to his memorial service Saturday in Wheeler Auditorium on the University of California’s majestic Berkeley campus. That was fitting because he went to law school at Berkeley’s School o f Law. And now a scholarship is being created there to honor his memory.

Hard to believe that this distinguished jurist was once a poor African American high school dropout, born in the segregated deep South of the 1930s. But Judge Ramsey never forgot. Nor did he forget those that took an interest in him and convinced him he could go to college when he was a young enlisted man in the Air Force. He went to Howard University in Washington D.C. where years later he returned as the Dean of their law school.

But it was in the Air Force where he learned this bit of motivational wisdom he always shared: “When the enemy comes, you are either ready or you are not.” It reminds me of Yoda’s “Do or do not. There is no try.” I continue to pass it along to our young attorneys here at Kazan Law.

I knew of his wonderful reputation when he was first appointed to the bench. When he inherited the job of Presiding Judge, there was a tremendous backlog of asbestos cases. I was the plaintiffs’ liaison counsel for all asbestos cases in Alameda County. They were mostly our cases anyway. He made it a priority to set up a program to bring these cases forward and to deliver justice to victims of asbestos exposure. I worked closely with him to get these cases going.

After he left the bench to become law dean at Howard, we were doing a class action settlement and had formed a class action trust. I nominated him to be one of three trustees. Sometimes we’d have our meetings in his office at Howard.

Every year our firm’s foundation would donate in his honor to some of the excellent local organizations he fostered. We will continue to do so.

He was a distinguished man – a judge, an attorney, a professor, a law school dean and community leader. He was a devoted husband, father and grandfather. A good man. I will miss him.

Kazan Law Referenced In Asbestos Research Article

Kazan LawAs experienced asbestos lawyers, Kazan Law wins cases for our clients not only because we intricately know the laws involving asbestos litigation, but because we also know and understand the science of asbestos exposure. We know both the legal and scientific history that connects asbestos exposure to the development of fatal lung diseases – primarily malignant mesothelioma. This informed background gives us the working knowledge good asbestos lawyers should have to fully represent their clients’ interest.

But sometimes, we happily discover that our knowledgeable careful asbestos litigation work has, in addition to helping our clients, also helped advance scientific knowledge in the understanding of asbestos. Talk about a win-win!

So we are very proud to report that a new scientific article published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health references Kazan Law and work we did on one of our asbestos cases. The article is aptly titled, “Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law” – a topic we certainly know more than a little about.

The objective of this article researched and written by Dr. David Egilman of Brown University and colleagues is, in their own words:

  • To understand the ongoing corporate influence on the science and politics of asbestos and silica exposure, including litigation defense strategies related to historical manipulation of science.

For their exploration of this topic, they examined previously secret corporate documents, depositions and trial testimony produced in litigation – that’s where we come in; as well as published literature. They cited an admission we obtained from a corporate witness to prove that a supposedly scientific article was paid for even though the author denied it.

The results of this investigative study, quoted below, came as no surprise to experienced asbestos attorneys like us:

  • Our analysis indicates that companies that used and produced asbestos have continued and intensified their efforts to alter the asbestos-cancer literature and utilize dust-exposure standards to avoid liability and regulation.

The researchers discuss how this is an ongoing problem; not an artifact of the twentieth century. And they note how manipulating data and regulations allows asbestos companies to continue to mine and sell asbestos in developing countries. Clearly, these companies are taking unscrupulous advantage of the poverty, lack of education and weaker regulations in these nations.

These are situations that are constantly monitored by people like Kathleen Ruff in Canada and Laurie Kazan-Allen, my sister, in England. We frequently report on their findings here in this blog.

We are proud to be part of both this current academic article and the bigger picture of seeking justice for those exposed to asbestos due to corporate malfeasance.

Landmark Case That Changed Asbestos Law

asbestos law

From San Francisco Chronicle July 4, 1980

Today as an asbestos victim, you can count on being able to sue those responsible.  If you are the survivor of a family member who died because of asbestos exposure, you also can count on being able to file a wrongful death suit.  The pioneering practice of asbestos law at Kazan Law helped make this possible.  We not only practice under existing asbestos litigation rules, we help create those rules.

When I first started my career as a personal injury attorney, asbestos law as we know it today did not exist. To commemorate Kazan Law’s 40th anniversary, we’ll take a look at one of my first cases against the Johns-Manville Company.  It was a landmark victory that changed asbestos law forever.

Reba Rudkin, the plaintiff in the case, had been dead for several months by the time the state Supreme Court made its landmark decision. Mr. Rudkin’s death was attributed to “lung cancer” at the time, caused by on-the-job asbestos exposure which also caused his asbestosis .

Mr. Rudkin had worked for 29 years at a now closed Johns-Manville plant in Pittsburg, CA where industrial products like asbestos cement boards and panels were made.

A San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article, aptly published on July 4 1980, a day after the court decision, notes:

According to Rudkin’s attorney, Steven Kazan, yesterday’s ruling was the first time a California court has permitted a worker to sue his employer for injury since 1917, except for minor cases of physical assault.

Yes, that ruling was a game changer.

In a 5 – 2 decision, the court said the alleged misconduct by Johns-Manville was flagrant enough to provide an exception to a state worker’s compensation law that had prevented workers from suing employers for work related diseases or injuries

Employers were immune then from injury lawsuits under the 1917 Worker’s Compensation Act because it said workers could only seek compensation through the labor department, not through injury lawsuits in the courts.

Using an approach that is now standard, we filed a civil lawsuit against Johns-Manville in 1974 (Rudkin v Johns Manville et al), arguing that the Worker’s Compensation Act should not shield the company and its executives from fraud and conspiracy charges.  With Mr. Rudkin suffering from the lung disease that would soon kill him, we sued Johns-Manville for fraud and conspiracy in inducing him to work in an environment they knew was dangerous.

In a deposition for the case, Johns-Manville’s former plant manager had testified that there was in fact a “hush hush” policy to suppress information about the health hazards of asbestos.

Justice Stanley Mosk, in the majority decision, ruled that a worker or his family could sue “for aggravation of the disease because of the employer’s fraudulent concealment.”

This established an exception to the workers compensation exclusive remedy rule, later codified in Section 3602(b)(2) of the California Labor Code. It also opened a pathway for hundreds of other sick and dying former employees  to seek justice from Johns-Manville and other big companies.

This case also determined that the family of a plaintiff who died during a pending court case had the right to continue the suit. This also was a very important ruling that has helped many families achieve justice and compensation from companies responsible for the death of their loved one.

Get a Free Case Evaluation
The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.