Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. 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 in defending asbestos cases.

Research has proven that exposure to asbestos attorney can lead to lung damage and cause lung disease. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims statutes limit the time frame within which a victim may make a claim. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different than other personal injury cases because the symptoms of asbestos-related illnesses can take decades to manifest.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in wrongful death cases) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their family members must consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are many aspects that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the deadline at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result in the case being thrown out. The time limit for filing a lawsuit is different from state to state and the laws differ greatly. However, most states allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos attorney case, defendants often use the statute of limitation as a defense against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs were aware or should have known about their exposure, and therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also claim that they didn't have the resources or means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a difficult case that relies heavily on the evidence available. For instance, it was successfully presented in California that defendants didn't possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. In some cases it might be beneficial to bring a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. This is usually to do with the location of the employer or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that since their products left the plant in bare steel, they didn't have a responsibility to warn about the dangers of asbestos attorney-containing products later added by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense has been accepted in some jurisdictions, but it is not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court did not accept the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead, a new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to inform consumers if they know that its product will be harmful for its intended use and has no reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However it's not the end. First, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims made on the basis of 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 a wider reading of the bare metal defense. For instance in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing equipment at an Texaco refinery.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will take a different view of the defense of bare metal. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He had worked 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 are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts for example, those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

asbestos attorneys litigation is complex and requires lawyers with extensive knowledge of law and medicine, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants with expert testimony in trials and depositions.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals, such as a radiologist and pathologist who testify on X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also be a witness to symptoms like difficulty breathing that are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a thorough description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an analysis of their tax and social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

A forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be necessary to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or the outside air.

Many plaintiffs' attorneys will employ experts in economic loss to calculate the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts will be able to determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify to expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that an individual is no longer able to do.

It is essential that defendants challenge the plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially when they have testified to hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. Experts can lose credibility with jurors if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also apply for summary judgment if they show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff was injured due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However, a judge will not grant summary judgment just because the defendant points to weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that getting significant information can be almost impossible. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to build a claim it is important to examine an individual's employment background. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's social security, tax and union financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and co-workers.

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

In the past, some attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and get large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has evolved the strategy has been largely rejected by the courts. This is particularly relevant in federal courts where judges have often dismissed claims due to the absence of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is therefore essential for a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure as well as the severity of any diagnosed disease. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma will likely be awarded more damages than one 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 been National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are regularly appointed as liaison counsel by courts to handle asbestos dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complicated and expensive. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation. We work with them to formulate internal programs that will identify potential liability and safety issues. Contact us to learn how we can protect the interests of your business.