20 Trailblazers Are Leading The Way In Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to speak at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise when defending asbestos cases.

Research has proved that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, as well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury claims there is a statute that limits the time frame within which a victim may file an action. In asbestos cases, the statute of limitations differs by state. They also differ from other personal injury lawsuits because asbestos-related diseases can take years to be apparent.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death cases instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason that 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 many things that need to be considered. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. This is the date that the victim has to make a claim by, and failing to do so could result in the case being dismissed. The statute of limitations varies by state, and the laws differ widely, but most allow for between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

During an asbestos case when the defendants often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they could argue that the plaintiffs were aware or should have known about their exposure, and therefore had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits, and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants did not have the resources or the means to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complicated case and relies on the available evidence. In California for instance it was claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected provide adequate warnings.

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

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos attorney litigation. It states that since their products left the factory as raw metal, they were under no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials that were added by other parties at a later date like thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead created an obligation for a manufacturer to warn when they know that their product is dangerous for its intended purpose and have no reason to think that the end users will be aware of this risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence, and therefore not brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing an expanded interpretation of the bare-metal defense. For instance, in the asbestos lawsuits MDL case in Philadelphia the case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in the case was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines at the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he is likely to take a different view of the bare-metal defense. 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 held that bare metal defenses apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges use the bare metal defense in other contexts like those that involve tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with a extensive knowledge of law and medicine, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, developing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and bringing in experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at trials and depositions.

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

It could be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or the outside air.

A lot of plaintiffs lawyers will bring in economic loss experts to determine the financial losses incurred by the victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify about expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that one cannot perform anymore.

It is essential that defendants challenge the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, particularly in the event that they have testified on dozens or hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility among jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment if they show that the evidence does not show that the plaintiff suffered injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. A judge is not likely to issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant points out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Going to Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in decades. Therefore, determining the facts on which to make a case requires a review of a person's entire employment history. This often involves a thorough review of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos sufferers are often diagnosed with less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to show that the plaintiff's symptoms are caused by an illness other than mesothelioma may have a significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys employed this strategy to avoid responsibility and receive large amounts of money. As the defense bar grew, courts have largely rejected this approach. This is especially relevant in federal courts, where judges have often dismissed claims based on the lack of evidence.

Because of this, a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential for a successful asbestos lawsuits defense. This involves evaluating the severity and length of the illness as well as the nature of the exposure. For example carpenters with mesothelioma may be awarded a higher amount of damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related lawsuits for manufacturers, distributors and suppliers, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our attorneys have extensive experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel. They are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be a bit complicated and costly. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation. We collaborate with them to develop internal programs that will identify potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how our firm can protect your business's interests.