Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to present at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the numerous issues that arise in trying to defend asbestos exposure litigation cases.

Research has proved that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma and less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation sets a deadline for the length of time that follows an injury or accident, the victim is allowed to start an action. For asbestos litigation wiki, the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury claims due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis or death in the case of wrongful death rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why the victims and their families need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

There are many aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the deadline by which the victim must file a lawsuit. In the event of a delay, it could result in the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitations differs in each state, and laws vary greatly, but most allow for between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In an asbestos-related case, the defendants will often attempt to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They may say for instance that plaintiffs should have been aware or were aware of their exposure to asbestos and that they had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in a case involving asbestos could also argue that they did not have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a difficult case and relies on the evidence available. In California for instance it was argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and were not able to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to make a claim in a different state than the victim's. It usually has to do with be related to the location of the employer or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense argues that since their products left the plant as untreated steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense has been accepted in some areas, but it is not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court did not accept manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead created the standard that requires a manufacturer to warn when they are aware that their integrated product is dangerous for its intended use and have no reason to believe that users will be aware of this danger.

While this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to win claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the tale. For one it is that the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims 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 to pursue a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. For instance in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether that state recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in this case was a carpenter who was exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos litigation cases-containing components at an Texaco refinery.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he is likely to take a different approach to the bare-metal defense. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma following working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare metal defenses apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges use the bare metal defense in other situations, such as those involving state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with a vast knowledge of both law and medicine as well as access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management plans in identifying and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony in depositions and in court.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that show the lung tissue being damaged that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify about symptoms such as difficulty breathing, which are similar to those of mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a detailed report of the plaintiff's job background, which includes an examination of his or her tax and social security documents, union and job information.

It may be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was brought home on the clothing of workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs' attorneys will hire economic loss experts to assess the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a victim has lost due to their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that a person is unable to do anymore.

It is important for defendants to challenge experts of the plaintiff, particularly when they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos litigation online-related claims. Experts may lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also apply for summary judgment if they can prove that the evidence does not establish that the plaintiff suffered any injuries caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. However, a judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant cites holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make an accurate discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to base an argument it is essential to review an individual's work history. This typically involves a thorough examination of social security and tax records, union and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are due to another disease than mesothelioma can have significant value in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and get large amounts of money. As the defense bar evolved, courts have generally resisted this strategy. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges regularly reject such claims due to the absence of evidence.

This is why an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure as and the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For example a carpenter with mesothelioma will likely be awarded higher damages than a person who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be a bit complicated and expensive. We help our clients understand the potential risks associated with this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs that will identify potential liability and safety issues. Contact us to learn how we can protect your business's interests.