The Three Greatest Moments In Asbestos Litigation Defense History

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys regularly speak at national conferences and are knowledgeable in the myriad of issues that arise in the defense of asbestos cases that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proven that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases the statute of limitations sets a deadline for the time after an accident or injury, the victim is allowed to start an action. For asbestos, the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from other personal injury cases due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in the case of wrongful deaths) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the date that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failing to file the lawsuit will cause the case to be closed. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies according to state, and the laws differ widely, but most allow for between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In an asbestos case, defendants often use the statute of limitation as a defense against liability. For instance, they might argue that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known about their exposure and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also argue that they did not have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument that relies on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected to provide sufficient warnings.

Generally, it is best to start the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's residence. In some cases it may be appropriate to bring a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. It usually has to do with the place of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that since their products left the plant as bare steel, they did not have a duty to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, like thermal insulating and flange seals. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead established an entirely new standard that states that manufacturers are required to warn consumers if it is aware that its product will be harmful for its intended use and does not have any reason to believe that its final customers will be aware of the risk.

While this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims based on strict liability or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a wider reading of the bare metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia for instance, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing equipment at an Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has stated that he would adopt the third perspective of bare metal defense. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by contractors of third party including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense applies to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other cases for example, those involving state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and require skilled attorneys who have a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues and Asbestos litigation wiki access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, latest asbestos Litigation such as investigating claims, preparing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and bringing in experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants in expert testimony at trials and depositions.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans reveal the typical lung tissue scarring that is due to latest asbestos litigation; written by Littleyaksa Yodev, exposure. A pulmonologist can also provide evidence of symptoms, such as difficulty breathing that are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, which includes a review of job, union tax, social security documents.

A forensic engineer or environmental science expert may be required to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was brought home on the clothing of workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to determine the monetary loss suffered by victims. They can estimate the amount of money that a victim suffered due to their illness and its impact on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills as well as the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge the experts of the plaintiff, particularly in cases where they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. Experts can lose credibility with the jury if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgement 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 grant summary judgment just because the defendant points to holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos litigation group cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and disease can be measured by decades. Thus, establishing the facts on which to create a case, requires a review of an individual's entire work history. This usually involves an exhaustive examination of social security, union, tax, and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this the capacity of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to a different illness than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have used this approach to deny responsibility and get large awards. As the defense bar grew, courts have generally resisted this approach. This has been particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have often dismissed claims based on the lack of evidence.

As a result, an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is essential to an effective asbestos litigation meaning litigation defense. This includes assessing the length and the nature of the exposure, as well as the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to suffer more damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends suppliers, manufacturers contractors, distributors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have years of experience as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to manage the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

asbestos litigation group litigation can be complex and costly. We help our clients recognize the risks involved in this type of litigation and we work with them to develop internal programs that will proactively identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out how we can protect the interests of your business.