Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the many issues that arise when litigating asbestos cases.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases the statute of limitations sets a deadline for how long after an injury or accident, the victim is able to file a lawsuit. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations differ by state. They also differ from other personal injury lawsuits because asbestos-related diseases can take years to develop.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos exposure litigation-related diseases the statute of limitation clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death, in wrongful death cases) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason the victims and their families should consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.

There are a variety of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the date at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result in the case being barred. The statute of limitation is different from state to state and the laws differ greatly. However, most states allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

During an asbestos case, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They might argue, for example, that the plaintiffs should have known or had knowledge of their asbestos exposure and had a duty of notification to their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma litigation, and it can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

Another possible defense in an asbestos case is that the defendants didn't have the resources or the means to warn of the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and were not able to give adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state of the victim's residence. However, there are situations in which it might be beneficial to file the lawsuit in a different state. This usually has to do with the location of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a common strategy employed by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense argues that because their products left the factory as bare steel, they didn't have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos litigation paralegal containing materials added later by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense has been accepted in some areas, but it is not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court rejected the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead formulated an obligation for a manufacturer to warn if they know that their product is unsafe for its intended purpose and have no reason to believe that users will be aware of this danger.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However it's not the end of the road. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive reading of the bare metal defense. For instance in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines in the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third view 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 worked 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 applies to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations, such as those involving tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, preparing strategies for managing litigation and budgets, identifying and bringing in experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants in expert testimony at trials and depositions.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals like a radiologist and pathologist who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties and coughing, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, such as a review of employment, union tax, social security records.

It may be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. These experts can help plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed in the workplace and instead was brought home on the clothing of workers or Asbestos Litigation Defense from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to determine the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts will be able to determine how much money a victim has lost due to their disease and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify on 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 plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially when they have testified to hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos claims. Experts may lose credibility with the jury if their testimony is repeated.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also request summary judgment if they can demonstrate that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff was injured from exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't accept summary judgment simply because the defendant cites weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that getting significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of the disease can be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to base a case, it is necessary to examine an individual's employment background. This typically involves a thorough review of social security and tax records, union and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, a defendant's ability to show that the plaintiff's symptoms stem from a disease other than mesothelioma may have a significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and get large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is particularly relevant in federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims due to the absence of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as well as the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma what is asbestos litigation more likely to suffer more damage than someone who has asbestosis.

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

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