What NOT To Do With The Asbestos Litigation Defense Industry

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to speak at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the many issues that arise when litigating asbestos cases.

Research has proven that exposure to asbestos can cause lung damage and cause lung disease. This includes mesothelioma and less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases there is a statute that limits the time period after which a victim can make a claim. For asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations vary by state. They also differ from other personal injury claims because asbestos-related diseases can take years to develop.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death in wrongful death cases) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is why the victims and their families must consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.

There are a variety of factors to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. This is the date that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline could cause the case to be closed. The statute of limitation differs from state to state and laws differ widely. However, most allow between one and six years after the time that the victim was diagnosed.

During an asbestos case, the defendants will often attempt to invoke the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they might argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure and thus had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma cases and can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in a case involving asbestos could also argue that they did not have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated case that relies heavily on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. However, there are some circumstances where it may be beneficial to file the lawsuit in another state. It usually has to do with be related to the location of the employer or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a standard strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It asserts that because their products left the factory as bare metal, they had no duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing products that were added by other parties at a later date for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is a common one in certain jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court did not accept manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead formulated a standard that requires a manufacturer to warn if they know that their integrated product is hazardous for its intended purpose and have no reason to believe that the users who purchase the product will realize this risk.

This modification in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However it's not the end. First reason, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims made on the basis of negligence or strict liability and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. For instance, in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines at a Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he will take a different view of the bare metal defense. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case ruled that the bare metal defense applies to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges apply the bare-metal defense in other cases.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with deep medical and legal knowledge as well as access to top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and bringing in experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants expert testimony at trials and depositions.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, which includes an examination of the worker's union and tax records as well as social security records.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was brought home on the clothing of workers or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers employ economic loss experts to assess the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts will be able to determine the amount of money a person has lost due to illness and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores a person is no longer able to perform.

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

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgement when they can prove that the evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the defendant's products. A judge is not likely to issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant identifies holes 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 time between exposure and the development of the disease could be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to build a claim it is important to review an individual's work background. This often involves a thorough examination of social security and tax records, union and financial records as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Due to this the capacity of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to a different illness other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and obtain large awards. However, as  which asbestos litigation is best  has grown, this approach has been largely rejected by the courts. This is especially relevant in federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on the lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is therefore essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the severity and length of the illness and the extent of the exposure. For example, a carpenter who has mesothelioma will likely be awarded more damages than someone who has only had asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, contractors as well as 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 costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we work with them to create internal programs that are proactive and identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how we can protect your business's interests.