20 Myths About Asbestos Litigation Defense: Dispelled

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the numerous issues that arise when defending asbestos cases.

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

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims, a statute limits the time frame within the date a victim is able to make an action. In asbestos attorneys cases, statute of limitations differs according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury claims because asbestos-related diseases can take years to be apparent.

Due to the delayed nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis (or death in the case of wrongful deaths) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason the victims and their families should consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim has to submit the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline could result in the case being closed. The statute of limitations varies in each state, and laws differ greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos attorney-related disease.

In an asbestos attorney case defendants typically make use of the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. They may say that, for instance, plaintiffs should have been aware or had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos and were under an obligation to notify their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases and can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case may be able to claim that they didn't have the resources or means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complex case and depends largely on the evidence available. For example it was successfully argued in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore 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. However, there are circumstances in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in a different state. This is usually connected with the location of the employer or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a standard strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It asserts that because their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is a common one in certain jurisdictions, but not everywhere.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its integrated product will be hazardous for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However, this is not the end. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence, and therefore not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in this case was a carpenter who had been exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing components at a Texaco refinery.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he'll take a different view of the bare metal defense. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma while working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by contractors of third party including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other situations for example, those involving state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires lawyers with a vast knowledge of both law and medicine, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and bringing in experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical lung tissue scarring that is due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify regarding symptoms, like difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide 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 could be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or the outside air.

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers hire economic loss experts to assess the financial loss suffered by victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to their illness and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that a person is no longer able to complete.

It is crucial that defendants challenge the plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially when they have testified to hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts could lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment if they prove that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered any injuries caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't grant summary judgment just because the defendant cites weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to build an argument, it is necessary to look over an individual's job history. This typically involves a thorough review of social security and tax records, union, and financial records, as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

asbestos lawsuits patients are more likely to develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Due to this the capacity of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few attorneys have employed this strategy to avoid liability and receive large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have generally resisted this approach. This has been particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on the lack of evidence.

As a result, an in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes evaluating the severity and duration of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance, a carpenter who has mesothelioma may be awarded more damages than a person who has only suffered from asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related lawsuits for manufacturers suppliers and distributors, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have been appointed as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts in order to manage asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this type of litigation, and we assist them to develop internal programs that will proactively identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us to find out how we can protect the interests of your company.