Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to speak at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos litigation cases cases.

Research has proved that asbestos litigation cases exposure can cause lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation establishes a time limit for the time after an accident or injury the victim is allowed to file an action. In the case of asbestos, the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury claims because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of aspects that must be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the date by which the victim must start a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit will result the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies in each state, and laws vary greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In an asbestos-related case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For instance, they might claim that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known about their exposure, and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma litigation and it isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another defense that could be used in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the means or resources to warn of the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument and largely depends on the evidence that is available. In California for instance, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected give adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state where the victim's residence. In some cases, it may make sense to bring a lawsuit in a different state from the victim's. This is usually to be related to the location of the employer or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a common strategy employed by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as unfinished metal, they had no duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties at a later date, such as thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions, but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court rejected the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead, an entirely new standard that states that manufacturers have a responsibility to warn consumers if it is aware that its product is likely to be hazardous for its intended use and does not have any reason to believe that its final users will be aware of that risk.

While this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the tale. First, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims made on the basis of negligence or strict liability, and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, like the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he is likely to take a different approach to the defense of bare metal. In that case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other cases for example, those involving tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and require skilled attorneys with a deep knowledge of both legal and medical issues, as well as access to top expert witnesses. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, creating strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and hiring experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants expert testimony at trials and depositions.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and Asbestos Litigation Defense radiologists who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also testify on symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, which includes an examination of the worker's union tax, social security documents.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer who what is asbestos litigation forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. These experts can help defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was 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 establish the monetary loss suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person has lost due to their disease and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that an individual is unable to do.

It is important for defendants to challenge expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos defense litigation cases, defendants can also request summary judgment if they demonstrate that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff was injured from exposure to the defendant's product. A judge won't grant summary judgement just because a defendant points out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that getting an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and disease can be measured by decades. To determine the facts upon which to base a case it is important to examine an individual's employment background. This involves a thorough review of the individual's social security, tax, union and financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and coworkers.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to show that the plaintiff's symptoms are due to an illness other than mesothelioma can have significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have used this strategy to avoid liability and receive large sums. However as the defense bar has evolved, this approach is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

Because of this, an in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as and the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma will likely be awarded higher damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, contractors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos-related litigation. Our attorneys have served as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are regularly appointed as liaison counsel by courts in order to manage asbestos dockets.

asbestos class action litigation litigation can be a bit complicated and costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation. We assist them in establishing internal programs designed to proactively identify potential liability and safety concerns. Contact us to find out how we can protect the interests of your company.