Asbestos Litigation Defense

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

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims there is a statute that limits the time limit within the date a victim is able to make an action. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits since latest asbestos litigation-related illnesses may take a long time to develop.

Due to the delayed nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation begins at the time of diagnosis (or death, in the case of wrongful deaths) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

There are many aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is among the most important. This is the date that the victim has to file the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline will cause the case to be barred. The statute of limitations differs from state to state, and the laws vary greatly. However, most allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

During an asbestos case in which the defendants are involved, specializes In asbestos litigation they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. They could argue, for example, that plaintiffs should have been aware or knew about their asbestos exposure and had a duty of notification to their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it isn't easy for the victim to prove.

A defendant in a case involving asbestos could be able to claim that they did not have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence available. For example, it has been successfully presented in California that defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to start the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's home. However, there are situations in which it might be beneficial to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. This usually has something to relate to where the employer is located or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It asserts that because their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties later like thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense has been accepted in some areas, but it is not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court rejected the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead created an entirely new standard that states that manufacturers are required to warn consumers if it is aware that its integrated product will be hazardous for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that its final customers will be aware of the risk.

This modification in law makes it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However this isn't the end of the road. First reason, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims made on the basis of 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 pursue a broader interpretation of the bare metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in 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 the case was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in a Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he will take the third approach to the defense of bare metal. In that case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare metal defense applies to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other contexts, such as those involving tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with a vast knowledge of both law and medicine, as well as accessing experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation and budgets, identifying and bringing in experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

Typically, Latest asbestos litigation asbestos cases will require the testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical lung tissue scarring caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties that are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a detailed report of the plaintiff's job history, including an analysis of their tax, social security documents, union and job information.

It may be necessary to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was ingested on the clothing of workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers employ economic loss experts to assess the financial losses suffered by the victims. They will be able to 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 on expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that an individual cannot perform.

It is important that plaintiffs challenge defendants' expert witnesses, particularly if they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence does not establish 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 points to holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts upon which to build a claim it is essential to examine an individual's employment history. This usually involves an exhaustive analysis of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records, as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

asbestos law & litigation patients often develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Due to this the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and get large awards. However as the defense bar has developed, this approach has been generally rejected by the courts. This has been particularly relevant in federal courts where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the length and nature of the exposure as well as the degree of any diagnosed illness. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to receive higher damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complex and costly. We help our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this type of litigation, and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how our firm can protect your business's interests.