7 Little Changes That Will Make A Huge Difference In Your Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

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

Research has shown that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser illnesses like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases the statute of limitations establishes a time limit for how long after an injury or accident, the victim can file a lawsuit. For asbestos the statute of limitations is different by state and is different from in other personal injury claims due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families should consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the deadline that the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result the case being barred. The statute of limitations differs from state to state and the laws vary greatly. However, the majority allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos exposure litigation cases, defendants often use the statute of limitation as a defense against liability. They might argue, for example, that the plaintiffs should have known or knew about their exposure to asbestos and were under the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another defense that could be used in an asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the resources or means to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a difficult case that relies heavily on the evidence available. In California for instance it was claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not to provide sufficient warnings.

In general, it's better to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. In some cases it may be appropriate to file a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. This is usually connected with the place of the employer or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos class action litigation litigation. The bare metal defense argues that since their products left the factory in bare steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, like thermal insulating and flange seals. This defense has been accepted in some areas, but it is not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered that. The Court rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead created an obligation for manufacturers to inform consumers if they know that their integrated product is hazardous for its intended purpose and have no reason to believe that the end users will realize this danger.

Although this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

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

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he'll take a different approach to 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 apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges use the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with vast knowledge of both law and medicine as well as access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in various asbestos litigation group litigation issues, including analyzing claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies as well as hiring and retaining experts and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony of medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos litigation meaning exposure. A pulmonologist may also testify on symptoms, Asbestos Litigation Defense like breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a thorough report of the plaintiff's job background, including an investigation of their tax social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

A forensic engineering or environmental science expert could be required to clarify the cause of the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos litigation paralegal was not exposed in the workplace and instead was ingested on workers' clothing or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers hire economic loss experts to determine the monetary losses incurred by victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money that a victim has lost due to their illness and its effect on their lifestyle. They can also testify on expenses such as the cost of medical bills and the cost of hiring a person to take care of household chores that the person is unable to do anymore.

It is important that defendants challenge the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, particularly in the event that they have testified on hundreds or dozens of other asbestos claims. Experts may lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants may also seek summary judgment if they can show that the evidence does not show that the plaintiff was injured by exposure to the products of the defendant. A judge won't give summary judgment just because a defendant identifies gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make an accurate discovery. The lag between exposure and the appearance of the disease could be measured in years. Thus, establishing the facts on which to build a case will require a thorough examination of the entire work history. This usually involves an exhaustive examination of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with less serious diseases like asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to show that the plaintiff's symptoms are caused by another disease than mesothelioma can have significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and get large sums. However, as the defense bar has evolved the strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

This is why an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This involves evaluating the severity and duration of the illness as well as the nature of the exposure. For example a carpenter with mesothelioma will likely be awarded a higher amount of damages than someone who has only had asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation for product manufacturers distributors and suppliers, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our attorneys 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 cases can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients be aware of the risks associated with this kind of litigation and we assist them to create internal programs that will proactively detect liability and Asbestos Litigation Defense safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how our firm can safeguard your company's interests.