Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys regularly participate in national conferences and are proficient in the many issues that arise when the defense of asbestos cases such as jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proven that exposure to asbestos can cause lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma as well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury claims statutes limit the time frame within the date a victim is able to make an action. For asbestos the statute of limitations is different by state and is different from other personal injury cases because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take years to show up.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis, or death in the case of wrongful death, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their families must consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of aspects that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline could cause the case to be barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit is different from state to state and the laws vary greatly. However, most states allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos case defendants frequently employ the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. They may say for instance that the plaintiffs should have known or were aware of their exposure to asbestos and that they had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case may also argue that they didn't have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence that is available. In California for instance it was argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not give adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. However, there are certain circumstances where it may make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. This usually has something to relate to the location of the employer or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that since their products left the factory in bare steel, they didn't have a duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions, but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court has ruled against the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to inform consumers if they know that its product will be harmful for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that the end users will realize that risk.

This modification in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However this isn't the end. First it is that the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are based on negligence or strict liability, and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the bare-metal defense. For example in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in this case was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing components at the Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third view of the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by contractors of third party which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare metal defenses apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges use the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge as well as access to top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation and budgets, identifying and hiring experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants with expert testimony in trials and Asbestos Litigation Defense depositions.

Most asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical scarring of lung tissue due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may be able to testify about symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, which includes a review of job, union tax, social security documents.

An forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be required to explain the cause of the asbestos exposure. These experts can help plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and was instead brought home through clothing worn by workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to determine the financial losses suffered by the victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money that a victim has lost due to their illness and its impact on their lifestyle. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that an individual is unable to complete.

It is essential that defendants challenge the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, particularly if they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos class action litigation claims. Experts can lose credibility before jurors when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgement in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. A judge won't grant summary judgement just because a defendant has pointed out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases means that an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the development of the disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to base an argument it is essential to examine an individual's employment history. This typically involves a thorough analysis of social security as well as tax, union and financial records, as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this the capacity of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to a different illness other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few attorneys have used this strategy to avoid liability and receive large awards. However as the defense bar has evolved the strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly evident in federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on the lack of evidence.

This is why a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential to a successful asbestos law and litigation defense. This includes assessing the length and the nature of the exposure as and the severity of any diagnosed disease. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer more damage than someone who has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related lawsuits for manufacturers suppliers and distributors, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have extensive experience as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complicated and expensive. We assist our clients in understanding the potential risks associated with this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs to identify potential liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out more about how our firm can safeguard your company's interests.