The No. One Question That Everyone In Asbestos Litigation Defense Should Be Able To Answer

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise in trying to defend asbestos cases.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury claims there is a statute that limits the time frame within which a victim can file a claim. In asbestos cases, the statute of limitations differs by state. They also differ from other personal injury lawsuits because asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death in the case of wrongful deaths) rather than at the time of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer, redirect to Technetbloggers,.

There are a myriad of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. This is the time limit that the victim must submit the lawsuit by, and failure to do so will result in the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies in each state, and laws differ greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In asbestos cases in which the defendants are involved, they will typically try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they could argue that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known about their exposure and therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits, and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case could be able to claim that they did not have the resources or the means to warn people about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence available. For example it has been successfully presented in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. However, there are some circumstances where it may be appropriate to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. This usually has something to be related to where the employer is located or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a typical strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense argues that, because their products left the factory as bare steel, they didn't have a duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense has been accepted in some areas, but it is not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court rejected the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead created an entirely new standard that states that a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers if it is aware that its integrated product will be harmful for the purpose it was designed for and has no reason to believe that the end users will be aware of that risk.

While this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. For one, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are made on the basis of negligence or strict liability, and are not brought under the federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. 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 the case was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he will adopt a third view of the bare-metal defense. In that 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 the case decided that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other situations, such as those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge and access to top experts. Attorneys at EWH have decades of experience in assisting clients with a variety of asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation, finding and retaining experts, and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony in depositions and in court.

Typically, asbestos attorney cases will require the testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may be able to testify about symptoms, such as difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide a full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, which includes an examination of the worker's union, tax, and social security documents.

It is possible to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but brought into the home through the clothing of workers or by airborne particles.

A lot of plaintiffs lawyers will call experts in economic loss to assess the financial losses incurred by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person suffered due to their illness and its impact on their lifestyle. 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 the person can no longer perform.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially when they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. These experts can lose credibility before jurors if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence does NOT show that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However a judge won't give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to base an argument, it is necessary to look over an individual's job background. This requires a thorough examination of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the ability of a defendant to prove that the plaintiff's symptoms could be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys employed this strategy to avoid responsibility and receive large awards. However as the defense bar has grown and diversified, this strategy 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 essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and the nature of the exposure, as in addition to the severity of any diagnosed disease. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to receive higher damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, contractors, property owners, and employers in asbestos-related litigation. Our lawyers have been appointed as 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 help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation. We collaborate with them to develop internal programs that will identify potential liability and safety concerns. Contact us to learn how we can protect the interests of your company.