Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the numerous issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos litigation wiki cases.

Research has demonstrated that exposure to asbestos can cause lung damage and cause lung disease. This includes mesothelioma as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitations defines a time frame for the length of time that follows an accident or injury the victim can start an action. For asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different from in other personal injury claims because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason that victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

There are a variety of factors to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the time limit by which the victim must start a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit will result in the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitation varies from state to state and the laws differ greatly. However, most allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

In an asbestos case defendants typically make use of the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they might claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure, and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma cases and can be difficult for the victim to prove.

A defendant in a case involving asbestos could also argue that they didn't have the resources or means to warn people about the dangers of the product. This is a complex case that relies heavily on the evidence available. For instance, it has been successfully argued in California that defendants didn't possess "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

In general, it is recommended to start the asbestos defense litigation lawsuit in the state where the victim's residence. In some cases, it may make sense to file a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. This is usually connected with the place of the employer, or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos class action litigation.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that since their products left the factory in bare steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, for instance thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in certain jurisdictions, but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court rejected the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead created a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its product is likely to be harmful for the purpose it was designed for and has no reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

Although this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. First it is that the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims based on negligence or strict liability, and are not brought under the federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia for instance, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing equipment at the Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he'll adopt a third view of the bare-metal defense. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He had worked on equipment that was repaired or Asbestos Litigation Defense replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts like those that involve tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires lawyers with vast knowledge of both law and medicine, as well as accessing experts of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience in assisting clients with a variety of asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation, hiring and retaining experts and defending defendants' and plaintiffs' expert testimony during depositions and in court.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals, such as pathologists and radiologists who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can be able to testify about symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a thorough description of the plaintiff's employment background, which includes an investigation of their tax, social security, union and job records.

It may be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. Experts from these fields can assist defendants to argue that asbestos exposure did not occur at the workplace, but was brought home by workers' clothing or air outside.

Many plaintiffs' lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to establish the monetary loss suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person lost as a result of their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores a person is no longer able to do.

It is essential for defendants to challenge expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially when they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility among jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgement in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence does NOT establish that the plaintiff was injured by exposure to the products of the defendant. However, a judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant cites gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that getting significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and the development of the disease could be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to base an argument it is essential to review an individual's work background. This often involves a thorough review of social security, union, tax, and financial records as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are due to an illness other than mesothelioma may have a significant value in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers employed this strategy to avoid responsibility and receive large amounts of money. As the defense bar grew, courts have largely rejected this strategy. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges routinely reject such claims due to lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is crucial to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the length and extent of exposure as in addition to the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to receive higher damages than a person who only has 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 lawyers have extensive experience in the role of National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and expensive. We assist our clients to recognize the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that can identify liability and safety concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our company can safeguard your company's interests.