What You Must Forget About Enhancing Your Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to speak at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable in the myriad of issues that arise in defending asbestos cases.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases statutes limit the time period after which a victim can make an action. In asbestos cases, the statute of limitations differs according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits since asbestos-related illnesses may take years to develop.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation clock starts on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why the families of victims should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

There are many factors to consider when making an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. This is the time limit that the victim must make a claim by, and failure to file the lawsuit will cause the case to be dismissed. 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 the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In asbestos cases defendants frequently employ the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they might argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure, and therefore had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma cases, and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

Another defense that could be used in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the resources or the means to inform the public about the dangers associated with the product. This is a complex argument that relies on the evidence that is available. In California, for example it was argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected to provide sufficient warnings.

In general, it is best to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. In certain circumstances it might be beneficial to make a claim in a different state from the victim's. It usually has to do with the place of the employer, or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a common strategy employed by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn consumers of the dangers of asbestos-containing products added by other parties at a later time for example, thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense has been embraced in certain areas, but it is not available 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 manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead established the standard that requires the manufacturer to notify customers when they know that their integrated product is hazardous for its intended purpose and have no reason to believe that the users who purchase the product will be aware of this risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However it's not the end of the story. The DeVries decision is not applicable 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 to seek a more expansive reading of the bare metal defense. For example in the asbestos attorneys MDL in Philadelphia the case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has stated that he would adopt the third perspective 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 was repaired or replaced by contractors from third parties including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts, such as those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires attorneys with vast knowledge of both law and medicine and access to experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys EWH have decades of experience helping clients in various asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, preparing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation as well as finding and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony in deposition and at trial.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist and pathologist who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of the lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties and coughing, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide a detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, including an examination of the worker's union and tax records as well as social security documents.

An forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be required to clarify the cause of the asbestos lawyers exposure. These experts can aid defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or air outside.

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to calculate the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person lost as a result of their illness and its impact on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify about expenses such as the cost of medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that the person is unable to do anymore.

It is important for defendants to challenge plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially when they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos-related cases. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility among jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence does NOT prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However the judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant has pointed 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 years. As such, establishing the facts upon which to build a case requires a thorough review of the entire work history. This often involves a thorough analysis of social security and tax records, union, and financial records, as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

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

In the past, a few attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and obtain large awards. As the defense bar has evolved and the courts have generally rejected this method. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss claims based on the absence of evidence.

As a result, an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is essential for a successful asbestos defense. This includes assessing both the severity and length of the disease as well as the type of the exposure. For example a carpenter with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded a higher amount of damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

asbestos lawyer cases can be complex and costly. We assist our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this type of litigation and we collaborate with them to develop internal programs that will proactively identify liability and safety concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how our company can protect your business's interests.