Begin By Meeting Your Fellow Asbestos Litigation Defense Enthusiasts. Steve Jobs Of The Asbestos Litigation Defense Industry

asbestos lawyers Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable in the myriad of issues that arise when litigating asbestos cases.

Research has demonstrated that exposure to asbestos can lead to lung damage and cause lung disease. This includes mesothelioma as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute limits the time limit within which a victim may file a claim. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury claims because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

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 the reason why victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of things that need to be taken into account. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. This is the time limit that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failing to file a lawsuit by the deadline will cause the case to be closed. The statute of limitations varies in each state, and laws differ greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In asbestos cases, defendants often make use of the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they could 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 a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case could be able to claim that they did not have the resources or means to warn people about the dangers of the product. This is a difficult case and depends largely on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully argument that defendants did not have "state-ofthe-art" information and were not able to provide adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's home. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to bring a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. This is usually connected with the location of the employer, or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products left the factory as unfinished metal, they had no obligation to warn consumers of the risks of asbestos-containing materials that were added by other parties at a later time for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is recognized in certain jurisdictions, but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court rejected the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead established an entirely new standard that states that manufacturers are required to inform consumers if they know that its product will be harmful for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that its final users will be aware of that risk.

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

Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive reading of the bare metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example the case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was a carpenter who had been exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing parts at an Texaco refining facility.

In the same case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to take the third approach to 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 third-party contractors, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare metal defense applies 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 litigation can be complex and requires attorneys with extensive knowledge of law and medicine as well as access to top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, developing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and hiring experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

In most cases, asbestos cases 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 could also testify on symptoms, like difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos lawyers-related illnesses. Experts can provide a thorough report of the plaintiff's job history, including an examination of his or her tax social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

It could be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. These experts can help defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed in the workplace and instead was brought home on workers' clothing or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs' lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to assess the financial loss suffered by the victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to disease and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the price of hiring someone to perform household chores that one can no longer perform.

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

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence does NOT show 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 gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of the disease can be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to build an argument it is essential to look over an individual's job history. This typically involves a thorough examination of social security, union, tax and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

asbestos lawsuits patients often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this the ability of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be caused by a different disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and obtain large awards. As the defense bar grew, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges often reject such claims due to lack of evidence.

This is why an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and the nature of the exposure as and the severity of any diagnosed disease. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded more damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients understand the risks associated with this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs that will detect potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how we can safeguard your company's interests.