Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the many issues that arise in litigating latest asbestos litigation cases.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos litigation meaning can lead to lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma, and less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

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 an action. For asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits as asbestos-related illnesses can take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations clock starts on the date of diagnosis, or death in the case of wrongful death instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an 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 must make a claim by, and failing to do so will cause the case to be barred. The statute of limitations varies according to state, and the laws differ greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

During an asbestos case, the defendants will often attempt to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they could claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure and therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case may also argue that they did not have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence that is available. In California, for example, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to file an asbestos law and litigation lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. In certain situations, it may make sense to bring a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. This is usually to be related to the location of the employer or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products left the factory as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials added by other parties at a later time for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense has been embraced in certain jurisdictions, but it is not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court has rejected manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead established an obligation for a manufacturer to warn if they know that their product is unsafe for its intended use and have no reason to think that the users who purchase the product will realize this danger.

This modification in law makes it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the bare-metal defense. For example in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia the case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who had been exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos-containing equipment at an Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he'll take a different view of the bare-metal defense. In that case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges apply the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with vast knowledge of both law and asbestos litigation defense medicine and access to experts of the highest caliber. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in various asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management plans as well as hiring and retaining experts and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony in deposition and during trial.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that show the lung tissue being damaged that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as difficulty breathing that are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union tax, social security documents.

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

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs employ economic loss experts to determine the monetary loss suffered by victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money a victim suffered due to their illness and the impact it had on their lifestyle. They can also testify about expenses like the cost of medical bills and asbestos litigation defense the price of hiring someone to perform household chores that one can no longer perform.

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

Defendants in asbestos cases can also apply for summary judgment if they can demonstrate that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However, a judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant points to weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases means that meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in decades. To establish the facts on which to build a claim it is essential to look over an individual's job history. This typically involves a thorough analysis of social security, union, tax, and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are caused by another disease than mesothelioma can have significant value in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this method to avoid responsibility and receive large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have largely rejected this strategy. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. 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 will likely be awarded a higher amount of damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers contractors, distributors and asbestoslitigationgroup property owners as well as employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have served as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts in order to manage asbestos dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the risks involved in this type of litigation. We assist them in establishing internal programs that will detect potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how our company can protect your company's interests.