This Week s Most Popular Stories Concerning Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the numerous issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos cases.

Research has proven that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma and lesser illnesses like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitation establishes a time limit for how long after an accident or injury, the victim is able to file an action. In asbestos cases, the statutes of limitations vary by state. They also differ from other personal injury claims because asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to be apparent.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis or death in the case of wrongful death, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of things that need to be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the deadline that the victim has to submit the lawsuit by, and failure to do so will cause the case to be dismissed. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies by state, and the laws differ greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

During an asbestos case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They could argue, for example, that the plaintiffs should have known or were aware of their exposure to asbestos and were under the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and is difficult to prove for the victim.

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

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's residence. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to file a lawsuit in a different state from the victim's. This is usually connected with the location of the employer or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that because their products left the plant as untreated steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in a few jurisdictions, but it is not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court rejected the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead established a standard that requires 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 users who purchase the product will realize this risk.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However this isn't the end of the story. The DeVries decision does not apply 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 a broader interpretation of the bare metal defense. For example in the asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who had been exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing components at a Texaco refinery.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he is likely to take a different view of the bare-metal defense. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case ruled that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges use the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require skilled attorneys with a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues, as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, creating litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and hiring experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants expert testimony at depositions and trials.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify on symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, which includes a review of job, union and tax records as well as social security records.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or air outside.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will call experts from the field to assess the financial losses incurred by the victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to illness and the effect it had on his or her life. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that an individual is unable to complete.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge the expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility with jurors.

Defendants in asbestos attorney cases can also request summary judgment if they prove that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff was injured caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge won't give summary judgment just because a defendant identifies gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that getting meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the appearance of the disease can be measured in years. To establish the facts on which to base a claim, it is necessary to review an individual's work history. This typically involves a thorough analysis of social security and tax records, union, and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the capacity of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms might be caused by a different disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this method to deny responsibility and get large sums. However as the defense bar has developed and diversified, this strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges regularly reject such claims due to lack of evidence.

Because of this, an accurate assessment of every potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos defense. This includes evaluating both the severity and length of the illness as well as the type of the exposure. For instance a carpenter with mesothelioma will likely be awarded higher damages than someone who has only had asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complicated 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 are proactive and identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our company can safeguard your company's interests.