Asbestos Litigation Defense's History History Of Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers regularly participate in national conferences and are well-versed in the myriad issues that arise in asbestos litigation that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proven that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury claims, a statute limits the time limit within the date a victim is able to make an action. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations vary by state. They also differ from other personal injury claims because asbestos-related diseases can take years to be apparent.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in wrongful death cases) instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of aspects that must be considered. The statute of limitations is among the most important. The statute of limitations is the time limit that the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit could result in the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitations varies from state to state and the laws differ greatly. However, the majority allow between one and six years after the time that the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos case defendants typically employ the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They might argue, for example, that plaintiffs should have been aware or were aware of their asbestos exposure and had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma cases, and it can be difficult for the victim to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case may also argue that they didn't have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated 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 therefore could not to provide sufficient warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's home. In certain situations it might be beneficial to bring a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. This is usually to be related to where the employer is located or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn consumers of the risks of asbestos-containing materials added by other parties at a later date, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense has been accepted in some states, but it's not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys.  Norwalk asbestos attorneys . v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead created a standard that requires the manufacturer to notify customers if they know that their integrated product is dangerous for its intended purpose. They there is no reason to believe that the users who purchase the product will realize this risk.

Although this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the tale. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that 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 to seek a more expansive understanding of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia for instance, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine if that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in this case was a carpenter who had been exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos-containing equipment at a Texaco refining facility.

In the same case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third view of bare metal defense. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare-metal defenses can be applied to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other cases, such as those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with a extensive knowledge of law and medicine, as well as accessing top experts. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience in assisting clients with various asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation as well as finding and retaining experts, and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony in deposition and at trial.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties that 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 employment, union and tax records as well as social security documents.

It is possible to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. Experts from these fields can assist defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought home by workers' clothing or by airborne particles.

Many plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to establish the monetary losses incurred by the victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to illness and the effect it has had on their life. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person is unable to complete.

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

In asbestos cases, defendants may also seek summary judgement when they can prove that the evidence does NOT show that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. However a judge won't grant summary judgment just because the defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that getting meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to base an argument it is essential to review an individual's work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's social security, tax, union and financial documents, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to a different illness that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have used this approach to deny responsibility and obtain large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has evolved and diversified, this strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This has been particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have often dismissed claims due to the absence of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is therefore essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as in addition to the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance a carpenter with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded more damages than one who has only had 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 been appointed as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are regularly appointed as liaison counsel by courts in order to manage asbestos dockets.

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