Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys regularly speak at national conferences and are knowledgeable in the myriad issues that arise when defending asbestos cases, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proved that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations sets a deadline for the time after an injury or accident, the victim is allowed to bring a lawsuit. For asbestos-related cases, the statute of limitations differs by state. They are also different from other personal injury claims as asbestos-related illnesses can take years to manifest.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death, in cases of wrongful death) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their family members need to work with a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.

There are a myriad 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 time limit that the victim has to start a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit could result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies according to state, and the laws differ widely, but most allow for between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos law and litigation-related illness.

In an asbestos case, defendants often employ the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. They may say, for example, that the plaintiffs should have known or had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos and that they had a duty of notification to their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases, and it can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

Another defense that could be used in a case involving asbestos exposure litigation is that the defendants didn't have the means or resources to warn people of the dangers posed by the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence available. In California, for example, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim lives. However, there are some circumstances where it may make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. It usually has to do with do with the location of the employer or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a standard strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense argues that since their products left the factory as untreated steel, they didn't have a duty to inform about the dangers of asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court did not accept manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead formulated an obligation for the manufacturer to notify customers if they know that their integrated product is dangerous for its intended purpose. They have no reason to believe that the end users will be aware of this risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However, this is not the end. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia, for example the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar instance, Asbestos Litigation Defense a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he'll adopt a third view of the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense applies to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges use the bare metal defense in other cases, such as those involving state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require skilled lawyers with a deep knowledge of both legal and medical issues, as well as access to top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, preparing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, as well as identifying and hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants with expert testimony in trials and depositions.

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

An forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be required to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. These experts can help defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and was instead brought home on the clothing of workers or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to assess the financial losses suffered by the victims. They can estimate the amount of money a victim lost as a result of their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the price of hiring a person to take care of household chores that one is unable to do anymore.

It is important that defendants challenge plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on hundreds or dozens of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts could lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence does NOT prove that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However, a judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of the disease can be measured in decades. As such, establishing the facts on which to build a case requires a thorough review of the entire work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and get large sums. However, as the defense bar has grown and diversified, this strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

As a result, an accurate assessment of every potential defendant is essential to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and the nature of the exposure as and the severity of any diagnosed disease. For example carpenters with mesothelioma may be awarded a higher amount of damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation on behalf of manufacturers suppliers and distributors contractors, employers, and property owners. Our attorneys have been appointed as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts to manage asbestos dockets.

asbestos defense litigation cases can be complicated and costly. We help our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this kind of litigation and we work with them to develop internal programs that can detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out more about how our company can protect your business's interests.