Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry 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 numerous issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos class action litigation cases.

Research has demonstrated that asbestos exposure can cause lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma and less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitations sets a deadline for the time after an injury or accident, the victim is able to file a lawsuit. For asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations vary according to the state. They also differ from other personal injury lawsuits as latest asbestos litigation-related illnesses can take a long time to be apparent.

Due to the delayed nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in the case of wrongful deaths) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families need to work with a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are many factors that must be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the time limit that the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitations differs in each state, and laws differ widely, but most allow for between one and Asbestos Litigation online six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In an asbestos-related case, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For instance, they might argue that the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have known about their exposure, and therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

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

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state where the victim's home. However, there are certain circumstances in which it might be beneficial to file the lawsuit in another state. This is usually connected with the location of the employer or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare-metal defense is a strategy that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense argues that, because their products left the plant as bare steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions, but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead formulated an obligation for Asbestos litigation a manufacturer to warn when they know that their integrated product is hazardous for its intended use and have no reason to think that the users who purchase the product will be aware of the risk.

While this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to win claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the tale. 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 pursue a broader interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. For example in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he'll adopt a third view of the defense of bare metal. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with 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 like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and require skilled lawyers with a deep knowledge of both legal and medical issues, as well as access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have decades of experience in assisting clients with various asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation, identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony in depositions and in court.

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 reveal scarring of lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties that are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide an in-depth account of the plaintiff's work history, including an examination of his or her tax and social security, union and job records.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. Experts from these fields can assist the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure did not occur at the workplace, but was brought home by workers' clothing or the outside air.

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers employ experts in economic loss to determine the monetary loss suffered by victims. These experts will be able to determine how much money a victim 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 price of hiring a person to take care of household chores that one cannot perform anymore.

It is crucial that defendants challenge plaintiffs experts, particularly when they have testified to hundreds or even hundreds of 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 can show that the evidence does NOT prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. A judge won't issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in years. To establish the facts on which to build an argument it is essential to look over an individual's job background. This often involves a thorough analysis of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Due to this, the ability of a defendant to prove that the plaintiff's symptoms could be due to a different illness other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers employed this strategy to deny responsibility and get large sums. As the defense bar evolved, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

This is why an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the length and nature of the exposure, as in addition to the severity of any diagnosed disease. For example a carpenter with mesothelioma will likely be awarded more damages than someone who has only had asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complex and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the risks involved in this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs that will detect potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us to find out how we can help protect your business's interests.