Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to give presentations 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 disease. This includes mesothelioma, other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations establishes a time limit for the time after an accident or injury the victim is allowed to bring an action. For asbestos litigation group the statute of limitations varies by state and differs from in other personal injury lawsuits because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock starts on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason the victims and their families must consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of things that need to be considered. The statute of limitations what is asbestos litigation one of the most crucial. This is the time limit that the victim must submit the lawsuit by, and failing to file the lawsuit will result in the case being dismissed. The time limit for filing a lawsuit differs from state to state and the laws vary greatly. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos cases, Asbestos Litigation Defense the defendants will often attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known about their exposure and thus had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases, and it can be difficult for Asbestos Litigation Defense the plaintiff to prove.

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

In general, it is recommended to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state where the victim's home. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to file a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. This is usually connected with the place of the employer, or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that, because their products left the plant as bare steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, like thermal insulating and flange seals. This defense has been embraced in certain areas, but it is not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court rejected the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which manufacturers are required to warn consumers if it is aware that its integrated product will be harmful for the purpose it was designed for and has no reason to believe that its final users will realize that risk.

Although this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. For one, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims founded on negligence or strict liability and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. For instance in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter who was exposed to turbines and switchgear at an Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to adopt the 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 had been repaired or replaced by contractors from third parties which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense applies to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require experienced lawyers with a thorough knowledge of both legal and medical issues and access to top expert witnesses. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, preparing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and bringing in experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants with expert testimony in trials and depositions.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could also testify on symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, which includes an examination of the worker's union and tax records as well as social security records.

An forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be necessary to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. These experts can help defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or air outside.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to establish the monetary losses incurred by the victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money that a victim suffered due to their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify to costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that an individual is no longer able to complete.

It is important that plaintiffs challenge defendants' expert witnesses, particularly if they have testified on dozens or hundreds of other asbestos claims. Experts may lose credibility with the jury if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgement in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. However, a judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases means that an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in decades. As such, establishing the facts that will build a case requires a review of an individual's entire work history. This often involves a thorough examination of social security and tax records, union and financial records as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, a defendant's ability to show that the plaintiff's symptoms are due to a disease other than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have used this approach to deny responsibility and get large amounts of money. However, as the defense bar has grown the strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and extent of exposure, as in addition to the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance, a worker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer more damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related lawsuits for manufacturers suppliers and distributors contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have extensive experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are regularly appointed by 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 detect potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how we can protect your business's interests.