The No. 1 Question Everyone Working In Asbestos Litigation Defense Sho…

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to speak at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the numerous issues that arise when defending asbestos cases.

Research has proven that exposure to asbestos can cause lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

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

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are many factors that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit which the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failing to do so could result in the case being dismissed. The statute of limitations varies in each state, and laws vary greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In an asbestos-related case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to use 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 therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another potential defense in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the means or resources to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a difficult case that relies heavily on the available evidence. For instance it was successfully presented in California that the defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's residence. However, there are situations in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in another state. This is usually to relate to where the employer is located or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

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

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court did not accept the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead, the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to warn if it knows that its product is likely to be dangerous for the purpose it was designed for and has no reason to believe that the end customers will be aware of the risk.

While this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to win claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence, and therefore not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive interpretation of the bare metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia for instance the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in that case worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines at the Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he'll adopt a third view of the defense of bare metal. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having 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 like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges apply the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge and access to experts of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in various asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies, finding and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants' expert testimony during depositions and in court.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals such as pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could also testify regarding symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a thorough account of the plaintiff's work history, including an analysis of their tax and social security documents, union and job information.

It is possible to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos attorney. These experts can help defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or by airborne particles.

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers employ experts in economic loss to assess the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts will be able to determine how much money a victim has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify about expenses like the cost of medical bills and the price of hiring someone to do household chores that the person is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial that defendants challenge plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on dozens or hundreds of asbestos claims. Experts may lose credibility with the jury if their testimony is repeated.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also apply for summary judgment if they show that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant has pointed out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that getting meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The lag between exposure and the appearance of the disease could be measured in years. Thus, establishing the facts on which to build a case requires a review of an individual's entire work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security, union and financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and co-workers.

asbestos attorney patients often develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are caused by another disease than mesothelioma may have a significant value in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers employed this strategy to deny responsibility and get large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have largely rejected this method. This has been particularly evident in federal courts where judges have frequently dismissed claims due to the absence of evidence.

As a result, a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential for a successful asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the severity and length of the disease and the extent of the exposure. For example, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer greater damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be a bit complicated and costly. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we assist them to develop internal programs that are proactive and identify liability and safety concerns. Contact us to find out how we can safeguard the interests of your company.