A Cheat Sheet For The Ultimate For Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

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

Research has proven that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitation defines a time frame for asbestoslitigationgroup (Check Out Fhoy) how long after an injury or accident, the victim can file a lawsuit. For asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits as asbestos-related illnesses can take a long time to develop.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death, in cases of wrongful death) rather than at the date 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 things that need to be considered. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the time limit at which the victim has to make a claim. Failure to do so will result the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitations varies from state to state and laws differ widely. However, most states allow between one and six years after the time that the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos-related case when the defendants often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs were aware or should have known about their exposure and thus had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases and it isn't easy for the victim to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case may be able to claim that they did not have the resources or means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a difficult case and depends largely on the available evidence. For instance it has been successfully made in California that the defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. However, there are some circumstances in which it might make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. It usually has to do with the location of the employer or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that because their products left the plant as untreated steel, they didn't have a duty to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in a few 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 has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead, an entirely new standard that states that manufacturers have a responsibility to warn consumers if it is aware that its integrated product will be dangerous for its intended use and has no reason to believe that the end users will realize that risk.

While this change in law could make it more difficult 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 which are based on strict liability, or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing an expanded interpretation of the bare-metal defense. For instance, in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia the case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing equipment at the Texaco refining facility.

In the same case in Tennessee, Asbestoslitigationgroup a Tennessee judge has indicated that he will 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 while working on equipment that was 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 DeVries decision will impact how judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require skilled attorneys with a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues and access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in a variety of asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony during depositions and in court.

Most asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties and coughing, which are similar to those of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, such as a review of employment, union and tax records as well as social security documents.

It is possible to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or by airborne particles.

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs employ economic loss experts to determine the monetary losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money that a victim lost as a result of their illness and the impact it had on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring a person to take care of household chores that a person is unable to do anymore.

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

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. A judge will not give summary judgment just because a defendant has pointed out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of the disease could be measured in years. Thus, establishing the facts that will create a case, requires a thorough review of an individual's entire work history. This usually involves an exhaustive analysis of social security and tax records, union, and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos sufferers are often diagnosed with less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are caused by another disease than mesothelioma can have significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some lawyers have employed this tactic to avoid liability and receive large awards. As the defense bar grew and the courts have generally rejected this approach. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges regularly reject such claims due to the absence of evidence.

Because of this, an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is crucial to a successful asbestos defense. This includes assessing the duration and the nature of the exposure as well as the severity of any diagnosed disease. For instance, a worker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer more damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complex and costly. We help our clients understand the potential risks associated with this type of litigation and work with them to formulate internal programs that will identify potential liability and safety concerns. Contact us today to find out how we can safeguard the interests of your business.