Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos cases.

Research has proved that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases the statute of limitations establishes a time limit for how long after an accident or injury, the victim is allowed to start an action. For Asbestos Litigation Defense asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits as asbestos-related illnesses can take years to manifest.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins at the time of diagnosis, or death in the case of wrongful death, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos litigation group lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be taken into account. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. The statute of limitations is the date by which the victim must make a claim. Failure to do so could result in the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies by state, and the laws differ greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

During an asbestos case when the defendants often try to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For instance, they might claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure and thus had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits. It is difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case may be able to claim that they did not have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument that is largely based on the evidence available. In California for instance it was argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not give adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state of the victim's home. However, there are certain circumstances in which it might make sense to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. This is usually connected with the place of the employer or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare-metal defense is a strategy that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that since their products left the plant as untreated steel, Asbestos Litigation Defense they didn't have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, like thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense is recognized in some jurisdictions but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. 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 warn consumers if it is aware that its integrated product will be hazardous for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that its end customers will be aware of the risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end of the road. First reason, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims made on the basis of negligence or strict liability and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a wider interpretation of the bare metal defense. In the asbestos class action litigation Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines at the Texaco refinery which contained asbestos litigation group-containing components.

In a similar case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to adopt the third perspective of 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 that case held that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges use the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require experienced lawyers who have a thorough understanding of medical and legal issues as well as access to top expert witnesses. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, creating litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants expert testimony at depositions and latest Asbestos litigation trials.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring that is caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to testify about symptoms such as difficulty breathing, which are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a thorough account of the plaintiff's work history, including an analysis of their tax social security documents, union and job information.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can help 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 employ experts in economic loss to determine the monetary loss suffered by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a victim lost as a result of their illness and its impact on their lifestyle. They can also testify to expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person cannot complete.

It is essential that plaintiffs challenge defendants experts, particularly if they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos claims. These experts can lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also apply for summary judgment when they show that the evidence does not show that the plaintiff was injured due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However, a judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant points to holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining significant information can be almost impossible. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured by decades. Thus, establishing the facts upon which to build a case will require a thorough examination of a person's entire employment history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security and union financial records, as well as interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to show that the plaintiff's symptoms stem from another disease than mesothelioma could be of significant value in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and get large awards. However as the defense bar has grown the strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is especially true in the federal courts, where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.

Because of this, a careful evaluation of each potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos defense. This involves evaluating the severity and duration of the disease as well as the type of the exposure. For instance, a worker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer more damage than someone who has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients to understand the potential risks associated with this type of litigation and work with them to formulate internal programs that will detect potential safety and liability issues. Contact us today to find out more about how our firm can protect your business's interests.