Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise when defending asbestos cases.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations establishes a time limit for the length of time that follows an injury or accident, the victim is able to file an action. In asbestos cases, the statute of limitations differs by state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits as asbestos-related illnesses can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death claims, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why the families of victims need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are many factors that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim must submit the lawsuit by, and failing to file the lawsuit will result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit differs from state to state and the laws differ greatly. However, most allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos cases, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They might argue, for example, that the plaintiffs should have known or had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos and that they had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another defense that could be used in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the resources or the means to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not give adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the Asbestos Lawsuit (Https://Chessdatabase.Science/Wiki/Why_Do_So_Many_People_Want_To_Know_About_Mesothelioma_From_Asbestos_Exposure) in the state of the victim's residence. In certain situations it might be beneficial to make a claim in a different state than the victim's. This usually has something to relate to the location of the employer or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a common strategy employed by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that, because their products left the plant as untreated steel, they didn't have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions but not everywhere.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead created the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers if it is aware that its product is likely to be dangerous for its intended use and does not have any reason to believe that its final customers will be aware of the risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However it's not the end of the road. First reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are founded on negligence or strict liability and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

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

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he'll adopt a third view of the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma following working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by third-party contractors including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other cases like those that involve state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require skilled attorneys who have a thorough knowledge of both legal and medical issues as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation and budgets, identifying and bringing in experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants expert testimony at depositions and trials.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans reveal the typical lung tissue scarring that is due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also testify regarding symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide a full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of employment, union, tax, and social security records.

A forensic engineer or environmental scientist may be necessary to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought home by workers' clothing or the outside air.

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs employ experts in economic loss to determine the monetary loss suffered by victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the effect it affected their life. They can also testify on expenses such as the cost of medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that one is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge the experts of the plaintiff, particularly when they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos attorneys-related cases. Experts can lose credibility with the jury when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment if they can show that the evidence doesn't establish that the plaintiff was injured by 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 in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. 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 includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security and union financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to a different illness than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and obtain large awards. However, as the defense bar has grown, this approach is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges often dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is therefore essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating the severity and duration of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance, a worker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer greater damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we work with them to create internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out how we can protect the interests of your company.