Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to present at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable in the myriad of issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos cases.

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

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases the statute of limitations sets a deadline for the time after an accident or injury the victim can file an action. For asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury claims since asbestos-related illnesses may take years to develop.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma and other asbestos exposure litigation-related illnesses the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their families must consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

There are a variety of aspects to take into consideration 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 make a claim. In the event of a delay, it will result the case being thrown out. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies from state to state, and the laws vary greatly. However, most states allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos case, defendants often make use of the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. They could argue for Asbestos Litigation Defense instance that the plaintiffs should have known or knew about their exposure to asbestos and that they had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another defense that could be used in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the means or resources to inform the public about the dangers associated with the product. This is a complicated argument and largely depends on the evidence available. For example it was successfully argued in California that defendants didn't possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to start the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's residence. In certain circumstances, it may make sense to file a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. This usually has something to be related to the location of the employer or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as bare metal, they had no duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing products added by other parties at a later time for example, thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions but not all.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court rejected the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead established the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to warn if it knows 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.

Although this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to win claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the tale. For one, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are made on the basis of negligence or strict liability, and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a wider reading of the bare metal defense. For example in the asbestos law and litigation MDL case in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter who was exposed to turbines and switchgear at an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to adopt the third perspective of bare metal defense. In that case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He had worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense applies to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other cases.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require skilled lawyers with a deep understanding of medical and legal issues and access to top experts. EWH attorneys EWH have years of experience in assisting clients with a variety of asbestos litigation group litigation matters including investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies, finding and retaining experts, and defense of defendants and plaintiffs' expert testimony during deposition and during trial.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties that 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 analysis of their tax and social security, union and job records.

A forensic engineering or environmental science expert could be necessary to explain the cause of the asbestos law and litigation exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and was instead brought home through clothing worn by workers or from the outside air (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 impact on their lifestyle. They can also testify to expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that a person is unable to perform.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially when they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of other asbestos-related claims. Experts can lose credibility before jurors when their testimony is repeated.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also seek summary judgment if they demonstrate that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff suffered any injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant has pointed out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in decades. To establish the facts on which to build a claim it is essential to look over an individual's job history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's social security, tax, union and financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, Asbestos Litigation Defense the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms stem from another disease than mesothelioma could be of significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys employed this strategy to deny responsibility and get large awards. However, as the defense bar has evolved, this approach has been largely rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely reject such claims due to lack of evidence.

As a result, a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the length and extent of exposure, as well as the severity of any diagnosed disease. For example, a carpenter who has mesothelioma is likely to be awarded higher damages than one who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complex and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the risks associated with this type of litigation and collaborate with them to develop internal programs designed to proactively identify potential liability and safety concerns. Contact us to find out how we can safeguard the interests of your company.