Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise in trying to defend asbestos cases.

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

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims there is a statute that limits the time limit within the date a victim is able to make a claim. For asbestos, the statute of limitations varies by state and is different than other personal injury cases due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason the victims and their families need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit (opensourcebridge.science`s recent blog post), there are many factors that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the time limit that the victim has to make a claim. Failure to do so will result in the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitation is different from state to state and the laws vary greatly. However, most allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos cases, defendants often make use of 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 lawyer and that they had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits, and is difficult to prove for the victim.

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

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. In certain situations, it may make sense to bring a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. It usually has to do with relate to where the employer is located or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a standard strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that, because their products left the factory as untreated steel, they didn't have a duty to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, such as thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. 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 law. The Court rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead formulated an obligation for manufacturers to inform consumers when they are aware that their product is hazardous for its intended purpose and have no reason to believe that the end users will realize this danger.

This change in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end of the story. First, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are founded on negligence or strict liability and are not brought under the federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader understanding of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if that state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing equipment at the Texaco refining facility.

In the same case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third perspective of the defense of bare-metal. In that case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case ruled that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges use the bare metal defense in other situations, such as those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with a deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, creating litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and hiring experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals, such as a radiologist and pathologist who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as difficulty breathing, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union, tax, and social security documents.

It could be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. Experts in these fields can assist defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was ingested through clothing worn by workers or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs lawyers will call experts in economic loss to establish the monetary loss suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a victim suffered due to their illness and its impact on their daily life. They can also testify on costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that an individual is no longer able to do.

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

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment if they demonstrate that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge is not likely to grant summary judgement just because a defendant identifies weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a significant discovery. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured by decades. To determine the facts upon which to base an argument it is essential to look over an individual's job background. This involves a thorough review of the individual's social security, tax, union and financial records, as well as interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms stem from another disease than mesothelioma may have a significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and get large awards. However as the defense bar has evolved the strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges often dismiss such claims due to the absence of evidence.

As a result, a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos lawyers defense. This involves evaluating the severity and length of the disease and the extent of the exposure. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded higher damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

asbestos attorney cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the risks associated with this type of litigation. We assist them in establishing internal programs designed to proactively identify potential liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out more about how our firm can protect your business's interests.