asbestos litigation wiki Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The attorneys of the Firm regularly participate in national conferences and are knowledgeable in the myriad of issues that arise when asbestos litigation such as jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims statutes limit the time limit within which a victim can make an action. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations varies by state and latest asbestos litigation is different from other personal injury cases because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitation clock starts on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York latest asbestos litigation lawyer.

There are a myriad of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim must submit the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline could cause the case to be barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies in each state, and laws vary greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In an asbestos litigation online-related case, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They could argue that, for instance, plaintiffs should have been aware or knew about their exposure to asbestos and that they had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also argue that they did not have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument that is largely based on the evidence available. For example, it has been successfully presented in California that defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. However, there are some circumstances in which it might make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. This is usually to do with where the employer is located or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a standard strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is a common one in certain jurisdictions, but not everywhere.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped the law. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead established a standard that requires a manufacturer to warn when they know that their product what is asbestos litigation dangerous for its intended purpose. They have no reason to think that users will realize this danger.

While this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the tale. For one it is that the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are based on negligence or strict liability and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive understanding of the bare-metal defense. For instance in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether that state recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter, and was exposed to turbines and switchgear at the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will adopt a third view of the bare-metal defense. 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 ruled that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other cases like those that involve tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with extensive knowledge of law and medicine, as well as accessing experts of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs' expert testimony during deposition and during trial.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring that is caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can be able to testify about symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a detailed description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an examination of his or her tax social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

An forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be necessary to explain the source of the asbestos litigation paralegal exposure. These experts can help defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was ingested on the clothing of workers or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to determine the financial loss suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to disease and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify about expenses such as the cost of medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that the person is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial that defendants challenge the plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially if they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility with jurors.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also request summary judgment when they prove that the evidence does not establish that the plaintiff suffered any injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. A judge will not grant summary judgement just because a defendant identifies 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 development of disease can be measured in decades. As such, establishing the facts that will build a case requires a review of the entire work history. This involves a thorough review of the individual's social security, tax and union financial documents, as well as interviews with family members and coworkers.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this the capacity of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have used this approach to deny responsibility and get large awards. As the defense bar grew and the courts have generally rejected this method. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely reject such claims due to the absence of evidence.

As a result, an in-depth analysis 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 disease that is diagnosed. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma may be awarded a higher amount of damages than someone who has only had 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 been National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts to manage asbestos dockets.

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