Asbestos Regulations Manufacturer Liability

Asbestos Liability Reference Guide

Key Legal Standards
Burden of Proof	Plaintiff must prove defendant "knew or should have known"
Timeline Relevance	Knowledge at time of exposure
Document Evidence	Internal memos, regulatory correspondence, medical records
Landmark Cases
Borel v. Fibreboard (1973)	493 F.2d 1076 — First successful strict liability suit
Fischer v. Johns-Manville (1986)	103 N.J. 643 — Punitive damages upheld
Regulatory Benchmarks
1971 OSHA PEL	12 fibers/cubic centimeter (f/cc)
1986 OSHA PEL	0.2 f/cc — 60-fold reduction
1989 EPA Ban	Partial ban on asbestos (partially reversed)
Take Action
Free Confidential Case Review Call (866) 222-9990 No upfront costs — Contingency basis

Executive Summary

Asbestos regulations and the enforcement actions behind them provide powerful legal evidence that manufacturers knew—or should have known—about the dangers of asbestos exposure long before they warned workers or the public. Each reduction in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL), each regulatory action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and each international ban demonstrates that government agencies believed previous standards were inadequate to protect human health. When coupled with internal industry documents revealing deliberate suppression of medical evidence, these regulatory actions establish a compelling legal narrative: manufacturers had actual knowledge of asbestos dangers and chose profit over human safety. This article examines how regulatory history, case law, and documentary evidence combine to establish manufacturer liability in mesothelioma claims, and why time is critical for victims and their families.

Key Facts

Critical Evidence in Asbestos Liability Cases
1. Legal Standard	Plaintiffs must prove manufacturers "knew or should have known" of asbestos hazards at time of exposure; regulatory actions establish constructive knowledge benchmarks
2. OSHA PEL Reductions	1971 standard of 12 f/cc reduced to 0.2 f/cc by 1986—a 60-fold decrease proving prior levels were unsafe
3. Regulatory Acknowledgment	Each stricter standard represents government admission that previous exposure levels caused disease
4. Medical Surveillance	OSHA requirements for medical monitoring prove employers were expected to monitor workers for asbestos-related disease
5. Borel Precedent (1973)	Fifth Circuit established strict liability for failure to warn; opened floodgates for mesothelioma litigation
6. Internal Documents	Sumner Simpson Papers (~6,000 pages), Dr. Kenneth Smith memo (1949), and Saranac Lab suppression prove deliberate concealment
7. State-of-the-Art Defense	Split jurisdictions: New Jersey rejects it; California allows evidence. Internal documents usually defeat it regardless
8. International Bans	Foreign bans and restrictions prove multinational companies had knowledge available; U.S. sales despite foreign bans show conscious disregard
9. Punitive Damages	Fischer v. Johns-Manville upheld $300,000 punitive damages; willfulness and knowledge strengthen damages claims
10. Statute of Limitations	Varies by state but typically begins at diagnosis or discovery; time is critical for evidence preservation
11. Compensation Pathways	Lawsuits, trust fund claims, VA benefits, and wrongful death claims available
12. Cost to Victims	Contingency fee basis—no upfront costs; only paid if compensation is recovered

What Does "Knew or Should Have Known" Mean in Asbestos Cases?

The legal foundation of every mesothelioma lawsuit rests on proving that the defendant manufacturer "knew or should have known" about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This legal standard divides liability into two categories: actual knowledge and constructive knowledge.

Actual Knowledge

Actual knowledge means the defendant had direct, explicit awareness of asbestos hazards. Internal industry documents provide the most compelling proof of actual knowledge. Research by Danziger & De Llano shows that the Sumner Simpson Papers—a collection of nearly 6,000 pages of industry correspondence, meeting minutes, and strategic documents—reveal that asbestos manufacturers coordinated efforts to suppress medical findings and avoid warning workers about the dangers they had discovered.

One particularly damning document is the 1949 memo from Dr. Kenneth Smith to the asbestos industry, which advised: "We should not disseminate information...to the doctor, nor to his patient." This is not ambiguous language about scientific uncertainty; it is a direct instruction to conceal diagnosis information from those who needed it most.

The Saranac Laboratory conducted research for asbestos manufacturers and discovered that 73% of the animals exposed to asbestos in their tests developed cancer. Instead of sharing these findings with workers or regulators, the industry buried the research. These actions go far beyond negligence; they constitute deliberate concealment.

Constructive Knowledge

Constructive knowledge means the defendant is charged with knowledge that was available in the scientific literature, regulatory findings, or medical literature at the time—even if the company claims it did not actually review or know about those sources. The law presumes that a reasonable manufacturer monitoring industry developments, scientific publications, and regulatory guidance would have known about hazards that were being discussed or investigated.

Regulatory actions are central to establishing constructive knowledge. When OSHA set its first asbestos standard in 1971 at 12 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), the government was essentially saying: "We have reviewed the scientific evidence and believe workers can be safely exposed to 12 f/cc." However, when OSHA reduced that standard to 0.2 f/cc in 1986, the agency was admitting that the prior standard had been inadequate. That 60-fold reduction was not based on new science emerging in 1986; it was based on the same science that manufacturers should have understood in 1971, 1960, or even earlier.

As Paul Danziger, Founding Partner of Danziger & De Llano, explains: "Regulatory actions establish a clear timeline of what regulators—and therefore what manufacturers—should have known. A company cannot claim ignorance of hazards when a government agency has already determined those hazards pose unacceptable risks."

Burden of Proof

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant "knew or should have known" of the danger at the time of the plaintiff's exposure. This is why the date of exposure is critical in mesothelioma cases. A worker exposed to asbestos in 1950 faces a different evidentiary landscape than one exposed in 1980, because the regulatory and scientific record becomes more extensive over time.

However, the evolution of regulations actually works in the plaintiff's favor across the entire timeline. Even for 1950s exposures, manufacturers in that era were receiving warnings from industrial hygienists, published medical case reports, and regulatory inquiries about asbestos hazards. The 1930 British Factory Inspectors' Report documented asbestos diseases. By the 1950s, medical literature was accumulating. The regulatory bar simply became higher over time, but the underlying knowledge about asbestos danger predates most regulatory action.

How Do OSHA Standards Prove Companies Knew Asbestos Was Dangerous?

OSHA standards function as a legal and factual bridge between regulatory knowledge and manufacturer liability. Each reduction in the permissible exposure limit (PEL) serves as powerful evidence in mesothelioma litigation.

The Evolution of OSHA Standards

Before 1971, there was no federal OSHA asbestos standard. Manufacturers could argue (and did argue) that there was no clear regulatory guidance on safe exposure levels. However, this argument became indefensible once OSHA set its first standard in 1971 at 12 f/cc.

The 1971 standard meant the following: "OSHA, after reviewing available evidence, believes workers can be exposed to 12 f/cc without unacceptable risk." Yet by 1986, OSHA announced: "We were wrong. The actual safe level is 0.2 f/cc." This was not a marginal adjustment; it was a recognition that exposure levels OSHA had deemed acceptable just 15 years earlier were in fact causing disease and death.

What did manufacturers know in 1971? They knew that OSHA had set a standard of 12 f/cc. What should they have concluded when OSHA reduced it to 0.2 f/cc in 1986? They should have concluded that workers they had exposed to levels between 0.2 and 12 f/cc from 1971 to 1986 had been exposed to levels later deemed unsafe—despite their "compliance" with the law.

Medical Surveillance as Proof of Knowledge

One of the most compelling OSHA requirements is the mandate for medical surveillance. OSHA regulations require employers using asbestos to provide periodic medical examinations, chest X-rays, and pulmonary function testing for workers.

Why would the government require medical surveillance for a substance that posed no danger? The simple answer is that OSHA knew asbestos caused disease and required employers to monitor for early signs. When a manufacturer implemented these medical surveillance programs, they were implicitly admitting—to themselves and to the government—that they expected workers to develop asbestos-related disease.

Rod De Llano, Partner at Danziger & De Llano, notes: "Medical surveillance requirements are the government's way of saying: 'We know this material causes disease. We require you to monitor your workers so that when disease develops, we can document it.' That's not protecting workers; that's documenting casualties in an accepted occupational consequence of profit."

Records Retention and Documentary Evidence

OSHA requires employers to retain medical surveillance records for 30 years after an employee leaves employment. This requirement creates an extensive documentary trail that proves:

1. The company was aware of the medical monitoring requirement
2. The company anticipated that workers would develop asbestos-related disease (otherwise, why keep records for 30 years after employment ends?)
3. The company had systematic, documented evidence of worker health effects

These records become critical evidence in litigation. When a plaintiff's attorney subpoenas an asbestos manufacturer's medical surveillance records, the company often cannot produce complete files—yet the fact that the company was required to keep them proves the company understood the health risks.

Compliance with Outdated Standards Is Not a Defense

One of the most important legal principles in asbestos litigation is this: compliance with an outdated OSHA standard is not a defense against liability. Just because a manufacturer complied with the 1971 standard of 12 f/cc does not shield them from liability for worker injuries caused by exposure to levels that OSHA later determined were unsafe.

Courts have consistently held that manufacturers have a duty to monitor regulatory and scientific developments and to upgrade their practices when science demands it. Meeting yesterday's legal standard does not protect against liability for harms that today's standard recognizes as unsafe. This principle is particularly important for workers exposed in the 1960s and 1970s—the very decades when regulatory standards were first being established and then rapidly tightened as evidence mounted.

What Role Did the Borel v. Fibreboard Decision Play?

The 1973 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Products Co. (493 F.2d 1076) was the legal earthquake that changed asbestos litigation forever.

The Case and the Facts

Clarence Borel was an insulation worker who worked with asbestos-containing products from 1936 to 1969—a 33-year career of exposure. Over that span, he was exposed to asbestos insulation manufactured by multiple defendants, including Fibreboard Products. Borel developed mesothelioma and died; his widow brought suit against the manufacturers.

At the time, asbestos manufacturers argued that they bore no legal responsibility for worker injuries because:

1. Workers assumed the risk when they took jobs in the industry
2. Employers, not manufacturers, were responsible for workplace safety
3. The state of scientific knowledge at the time did not clearly establish asbestos as a hazard

The Fifth Circuit rejected all these arguments.

The Court's Holding

The Borel court established that asbestos manufacturers had a duty to warn of known dangers, even when those dangers affected workers employed by others (not direct employees of the manufacturer). The decision held that:

1. Manufacturers of asbestos products have a duty to warn of hazards they knew or should have known about
2. Failure to warn can constitute a basis for strict liability (not requiring proof of negligence)
3. This duty extends to workers who come into contact with the products, even indirectly
4. The "assumption of risk" defense does not shield manufacturers from liability

This decision opened the floodgates for asbestos litigation. Prior to Borel, injured workers had limited legal recourse. After Borel, manufacturers faced the prospect of thousands of lawsuits from workers who had been exposed to asbestos products without adequate warnings.

Why Borel Matters Today

Borel remains the foundational case for mesothelioma litigation. Courts across the country cite it as establishing the principle that manufacturers bear responsibility for known hazards. For plaintiffs, Borel provides the legal framework. For defendants, it explains why their arguments about "lack of knowledge" or "state of the art" fail—the courts have already decided that manufacturers should bear the cost of their failure to warn of known dangers.

Michelle Whitman, Senior Litigation Attorney at Danziger & De Llano, explains: "Borel didn't invent liability; it recognized that manufacturers have always owed a duty to warn of known dangers. The case simply held that asbestos manufacturers couldn't hide behind technical defenses when the evidence showed they knew about the risks."

How Do Internal Industry Documents Strengthen Mesothelioma Claims?

If regulatory actions establish what manufacturers should have known, internal industry documents prove what manufacturers actually knew. These documents are often the difference between a strong case and a case with punitive damages potential.

The Sumner Simpson Papers

The Sumner Simpson Papers represent approximately 6,000 pages of internal asbestos industry correspondence, meeting minutes, strategy documents, and communications dating back decades. Studies by Danziger & De Llano indicate that Simpson was an industry insider, and his papers reveal a coordinated industry effort to suppress medical findings, suppress research, and prevent warnings from reaching workers and the public.

These papers show that:

1. Manufacturers commissioned research that confirmed asbestos dangers
2. When research confirmed dangers, manufacturers suppressed or buried the findings
3. Industry members communicated with each other about controlling the message
4. Manufacturers coordinated strategies to avoid warning workers and the public

The Sumner Simpson Papers are not theoretical or ambiguous. They are contemporaneous documents created by industry members describing their own suppression strategy. They appear in virtually every major asbestos litigation and are often decisive in establishing punitive damages claims.

The Kenneth Smith Memo

In 1949, Dr. Kenneth Smith, apparently acting as an industry consultant, sent a memo to the asbestos industry with explicit advice on how to handle medical findings. Mesothelioma Attorney states that the memo stated: "We should not disseminate information...to the doctor, nor to his patient."

This is not a memo debating whether asbestos was safe. It is a memo advising industry members not to tell doctors or patients about information the industry had already gathered. It is an instruction to conceal what the industry knew.

The Saranac Laboratory Cover-Up

The Saranac Laboratory conducted experiments on behalf of asbestos manufacturers. The laboratory exposed animals to asbestos and documented the results. The results were devastating: 73% of the animals exposed to asbestos developed cancer. Rather than disclosing these findings to workers, regulators, or the public, the industry allowed the research to be suppressed.

Courts and juries view the Saranac suppression as one of the most egregious examples of industry misconduct. When a manufacturer commissions research that confirms the hazards of its product and then hides those results, it demonstrates knowledge and conscious disregard for worker safety that justifies punitive damages.

The Asbestos Industry Association (AIA) Formation

In the 1970s, following the publication of Dr. Irving Selikoff's landmark epidemiological research confirming asbestos dangers, the asbestos industry formed the Asbestos Industry Association (AIA) as a coordinated public relations and lobbying response. Rather than warning workers or changing practices, the industry formed an organization to manage its public image and lobby against regulations.

This response further demonstrates that manufacturers knew about the dangers and chose to invest in public relations rather than worker protection.

Punitive Damages

Internal documents that prove knowledge and deliberate suppression justify punitive damages awards. In Fischer v. Johns-Manville (103 N.J. 643, 1986), the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a punitive damages award of $300,000 in an asbestos case, finding that the defendant's conduct was "not merely negligent but wrongful and willful."

Punitive damages are not limited to covering the plaintiff's medical expenses or lost wages. Punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant and deter others from similar conduct. Manufacturers with documented knowledge of asbestos hazards and documented suppression of that knowledge face significant punitive damages exposure.

What Is the "State of the Art" Defense and Does It Work?

The "state of the art" defense is one of the primary arguments asbestos manufacturers use to defend against liability. The defense asserts that manufacturers should only be held liable for using products or practices that were known to be unsafe at the time—not for failing to foresee hazards that were unknown or unknowable given the state of scientific knowledge at that time.

The Defense Argument

Under this defense, a manufacturer might argue: "In 1960, when our product was being sold, the scientific consensus did not clearly establish that asbestos caused mesothelioma. We were using the best knowledge available to us at the time. It is unfair to hold us liable for failing to foresee hazards that were not yet understood."

This argument has some intuitive appeal. It seems unfair to hold someone liable for failing to know something that was unknowable. However, courts have increasingly rejected this defense, particularly when internal documents undermine it.

The Jurisdictional Split

Different states take different approaches to the state-of-the-art defense:

New Jersey Rejects the Defense

In Fischer v. Johns-Manville (103 N.J. 643, 1986), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state-of-the-art defense is not available in asbestos cases. According to Danziger & De Llano's legal review, the court reasoned that when a manufacturer has actual or constructive knowledge of a hazard, the defendant cannot escape liability by claiming that the hazard was not fully understood at the time of exposure. New Jersey courts have extended this principle consistently, making the state-of-the-art defense nearly impossible to win in that jurisdiction.

New Jersey's approach is based on the principle that manufacturers have a continuing duty to monitor evolving scientific knowledge and to warn of hazards that become known over time. If a hazard is discovered to be more serious than previously understood, manufacturers cannot escape liability by claiming that earlier understanding was the "state of the art."

California Allows the Defense

In contrast, California permits evidence of the state of the art as a defense. In Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (53 Cal.3d 987, 1991), the California Supreme Court held that evidence of the state of the art at the time of exposure is admissible as a defense. However, even in California, the defense is defeated if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had knowledge superior to the general state of the art—for example, through internal documents or research.

How Internal Documents Defeat the Defense

Regardless of jurisdictional approach, the state-of-the-art defense becomes nearly impossible to maintain when internal documents prove the defendant knew about hazards that were outside the "state of the art." If a manufacturer conducted its own research showing asbestos dangers, or if internal memos reveal awareness of hazards, then the manufacturer cannot claim that the hazards were unknowable.

For example, if a manufacturer conducted the Saranac Laboratory experiments and saw 73% of exposed animals develop cancer, the manufacturer cannot later argue that asbestos dangers were unknown or part of an unknowable "state of the art." The manufacturer's own experiments proved otherwise.

This is why the Sumner Simpson Papers, the Kenneth Smith memo, and similar internal documents are so devastating to defendants. They establish that manufacturers had knowledge beyond the general "state of the art"—they had actual knowledge that they suppressed.

Regulatory Timeline Undermines the Defense

Another weakness in the state-of-the-art defense is the regulatory timeline. OSHA did not set an asbestos standard in 1971 based on completely new science. The agency set the standard based on evidence that had been accumulating for decades. The fact that OSHA felt compelled to set a standard in 1971 (rather than waiting another decade) suggests that the hazards were sufficiently well understood that regulation became necessary.

Similarly, when OSHA reduced the standard in 1986, the agency was not responding to newly discovered hazards. It was responding to mounting evidence that previous standards were inadequate. This regulatory progression shows that asbestos hazards were becoming progressively better understood and documented—not suddenly discovered.

Manufacturers who claim they did not understand asbestos hazards in 1971 must explain why they did not object to OSHA's decision to set an asbestos standard. If the hazards were truly unknowable, why did the industry not argue for no standard, or for a much higher standard? The fact that manufacturers accepted the 1971 standard (even if they later complained it was too strict) shows they accepted that asbestos posed hazards requiring regulation.

How Do International Bans Affect U.S. Asbestos Lawsuits?

The United States lags significantly behind much of the developed world in banning asbestos. Many countries have implemented complete or near-complete bans on asbestos manufacturing, importing, and use. For multinational asbestos manufacturers, these international bans create powerful evidence of knowledge and conscious disregard.

The International Consensus

The European Union banned asbestos (with limited exceptions) in 2005. Canada prohibited asbestos in 2018. Australia imposed strict limits in the 1980s. As Mesothelioma Lawyer Center explains, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and numerous other developed nations have implemented comprehensive bans or severely restricted asbestos use.

These international bans are not based on novel science unavailable in the United States. They are based on the same scientific evidence regarding asbestos hazards that is available in the U.S. market. When a country bans asbestos, it is essentially saying: "We have reviewed the evidence, and we believe that the hazards of asbestos outweigh any benefits."

Multinational Companies and the Hypocrisy Argument

For multinational asbestos manufacturers, international bans create a devastating legal narrative: the company complied with bans in certain countries but continued to sell asbestos-containing products in the United States. This disparity proves that:

1. The company knew about the hazards (otherwise, why would it comply with foreign bans?)
2. The company made a deliberate choice to continue U.S. sales despite knowing about hazards
3. The company valued profit in the U.S. market more highly than worker health and safety

When a manufacturer designs one product for European markets (asbestos-free or asbestos-reduced) and a different product for U.S. markets (higher asbestos content), it demonstrates that the company understood the differences in regulatory and market expectations. The company knew that it could sell asbestos in the U.S. and chose to do so.

Courts increasingly view international bans as evidence that manufacturers had the knowledge necessary to protect U.S. workers but chose not to do so. The argument becomes: "If you could manufacture this product without asbestos for export to Europe, you could have manufactured it without asbestos for the U.S. market. Your failure to do so reflects a choice driven by economics, not by unavoidable technical limitations."

Strategic Implications for Litigation

Attorneys representing mesothelioma plaintiffs use international bans to undermine the "state of the art" and "technical feasibility" defenses. If a company could engineer asbestos-free or asbestos-reduced products for one market, it could have done so for another. The fact that it did not reflects knowledge and choice, not technical ignorance.

Additionally, international bans and restrictions demonstrate that governments and scientific bodies around the world reached the same conclusion about asbestos hazards. This international scientific consensus strongly supports the argument that asbestos manufacturers in the United States should have known about and warned of the same hazards.

What Should Mesothelioma Patients Know About Filing a Claim?

For individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, time is critical. Filing deadlines, evidence preservation, and statute of limitations create urgent time pressures that require immediate action.

Understanding the Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations in asbestos cases varies significantly by state. However, most states follow one of two approaches:

1. Discovery Rule: The statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) the diagnosis and the connection to asbestos exposure. Per Danziger & De Llano, most states use this approach, which typically provides 2-3 years from diagnosis to file suit.

1. Exposure Rule: Less common, but some states allow the statute to begin at the time of initial exposure. This approach is rarely used in asbestos cases because it would prevent most claims (exposure often occurred decades before diagnosis).

Because mesothelioma typically develops 20-50 years after exposure, the discovery rule is critical. A person exposed to asbestos in 1970 who is diagnosed in 2020 can usually file a lawsuit within 2-3 years of the 2020 diagnosis, even though the exposure occurred 50 years earlier.

However, statutes of limitations vary significantly by state, and some states have shorter windows. Additionally, certain states allow claims to be filed against asbestos trust funds under different timeframes. It is essential to consult with an attorney immediately upon diagnosis to ensure that all deadline requirements are met.

Multiple Compensation Pathways

Mesothelioma victims have several avenues for compensation:

Personal Injury Lawsuits

These are suits brought by the diagnosed individual against asbestos manufacturers, contractors, or premises owners responsible for the exposure. Compensation typically includes medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and potentially punitive damages. As documented by Danziger & De Llano, most cases are resolved through settlement, with awards ranging from six figures to millions of dollars depending on the defendant, jurisdiction, and case strength.

Asbestos Trust Fund Claims

Many asbestos manufacturers filed for bankruptcy following the explosion of mesothelioma litigation. As part of the bankruptcy process, these companies established trust funds—currently estimated at over $30 billion—to compensate future and past victims. Danziger & De Llano's historical analysis indicates that Trust fund claims often move faster than litigation and are available even if the responsible companies have ceased operations.

Veterans Benefits

Veterans exposed to asbestos during military service may be eligible for Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, including disability compensation and healthcare. The VA recognizes mesothelioma as a service-connected condition for veterans exposed during military service.

Wrongful Death Claims

If a mesothelioma victim passes away, family members can file wrongful death claims seeking compensation for medical expenses incurred before death, funeral costs, loss of companionship, and other damages.

No Upfront Costs

Mesothelioma lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning the law firm advances all costs and only receives compensation if the case is won or settled. This arrangement ensures that financial constraints do not prevent injured workers and their families from pursuing justice. The attorney's fee is typically a percentage of the recovery (usually 25-40%, depending on whether the case is settled or goes to trial), but the victim does not pay anything upfront.

Evidence Preservation and Witness Availability

Because asbestos exposure often occurred decades ago, preserving evidence and locating witnesses becomes increasingly difficult over time. Employers may have ceased operations, property owners may have changed, coworkers may have passed away, and medical records may have been destroyed.

The sooner a claim is filed, the better the opportunity to:

1. Locate and interview witnesses who remember the exposure conditions
2. Obtain employment records while the company is still in operation or before records are destroyed
3. Preserve workplace photographs or conditions documentation
4. Obtain detailed medical records from the initial diagnosis period

Delaying a claim increases the risk that critical evidence will be lost or witnesses will become unavailable.

Next Steps: Immediate Action Required

For anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease:

1. Contact an attorney immediately – Do not delay. Statute of limitations deadlines and evidence preservation require prompt action.
2. Gather exposure history – Document all places where you were exposed to asbestos, including employers, contractors, military service, and locations.
3. Locate medical records – Obtain all diagnostic records, chest X-rays, pathology reports, and physician statements confirming the diagnosis.
4. Preserve evidence – Take photographs of exposure locations if possible; document any products or materials that contained asbestos.
5. Identify potential defendants – List all companies, contractors, and property owners who may have been responsible for the exposure.

Contact Danziger & De Llano for a Free Case Review

Danziger & De Llano represents mesothelioma victims and their families throughout the country. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for asbestos victims. We offer a free, confidential case review—no obligation, no cost.

Call (866) 222-9990 today.

We understand the urgency of mesothelioma diagnosis and the importance of taking immediate action. Our attorneys will review your exposure history, explain your legal options, and help you pursue the maximum compensation available.

Internal Links and Related Pages

• U.S. Asbestos Ban History and Regulations
• Early Asbestos Awareness and Industry Suppression
• OSHA Asbestos Standards History
• EPA Asbestos Ban (1989) and Court Reversal
• EPA Chrysotile Asbestos Ban (2024)
• International Asbestos Bans and Restrictions