The Most Convincing Evidence That You Need Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The attorneys of the Firm regularly speak at national conferences and are proficient in the myriad issues that arise when the defense of asbestos cases that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proved that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, and less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation sets a deadline for the time after an injury or accident, the victim is able to start a lawsuit. For asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different than in other personal injury claims because the symptoms of asbestos-related illnesses can take decades to show up.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death cases instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the deadline that the victim has to make a claim. Failure to file a lawsuit will result the case being thrown out. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies according to state, and the laws differ widely however, most states allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In an asbestos-related case, the defendants will often attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. They may say for instance that the plaintiffs should have known or knew about 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 victim to prove.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the resources or means to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complex case that relies heavily on the available evidence. For example it was successfully argued in California that defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and asbestos Law & Litigation thus could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. However, there are situations specializes in asbestos litigation which it might make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. This is usually connected with the place of the employer or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a common strategy employed by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense argues that since their products left the plant as bare steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers of asbestos law and litigation-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating and asbestos law & litigation flange seals. This defense has been embraced in certain jurisdictions, but it is not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court rejected the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead created a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to inform consumers if they know that its product will be hazardous for the purpose it was designed for and does not have any reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

This modification in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However it's not the end of the road. For one reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are based on negligence or strict liability and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims 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 whether that state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines in a Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has indicated 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 with mesothelioma. He 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 have an impact on how judges use the bare metal defense in other contexts, such as those involving tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires lawyers with a vast knowledge of both law and medicine, as well as accessing experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, developing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and bringing in experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at trials and depositions.

Typically, asbestos litigation cases cases will require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as difficulty breathing and coughing, which are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union, tax, and social security records.

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 brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or air outside.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to establish the monetary losses incurred by the victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to disease and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores a person is unable to perform.

It is essential that defendants challenge the plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. These experts can lose credibility before jurors if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence does NOT show that the plaintiff was injured by exposure to the products of the defendant. However the judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

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 decades. As such, establishing the facts upon which to make a case will require a thorough examination of the entire work history. This typically involves a thorough examination of social security, union, tax, and financial records as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the ability of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be caused by a different disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers employed this strategy to deny responsibility and obtain large awards. As the defense bar evolved, courts have largely rejected this method. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges often dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is essential to ensure a successful defense in Asbestos law & litigation litigation. This involves evaluating both the severity and length of the illness and the extent of the exposure. For instance, a worker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer greater damage than someone who has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice asbestos litigation meaning Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers contractors, distributors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos related litigation. Our attorneys have been National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are regularly appointed as liaison counsel by courts to handle asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients to understand the risks associated with this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs to identify potential safety and liability issues. Contact us today to find out how we can safeguard the interests of your company.