15 Current Trends To Watch For Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise in trying to defend asbestos litigation online cases.

Research has shown that exposure to Asbestos Class Action Litigation (Qart.Travelpoint.Ge) can lead to lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma, and less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitation establishes a time limit for the length of time that follows an accident or injury, the victim is able to file an action. For asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations differ by state. They also differ from other personal injury lawsuits as asbestos-related illnesses can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delayed nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death in the case of wrongful deaths) rather than at the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their families need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

There are a variety of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the deadline that the victim has to start a lawsuit. In the event of a delay, it could result in the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitations varies from state to state and laws vary greatly. However, most states allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos cases, defendants often use the statute of limitation as a defense to liability. For instance, they could claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure, and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in a case involving asbestos could be able to claim that they didn't have the resources or means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence that is available. For instance it has been successfully argued in California that the defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. In some cases, it may make sense to file a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. It usually has to do with do with where the employer is located or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense argues that since their products left the plant as untreated steel, they didn't have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos litigation group-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating and flange seals. This defense has been accepted in some areas, but it is not a federally-approved option 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 established a new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to inform consumers if they know that its product will be harmful for the purpose it was designed for and has no reason to believe that its end customers will be aware of the risk.

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

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

In the same case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has stated that he would take the third approach to bare metal defense. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by contractors from third parties, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense applies to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with deep medical and legal knowledge as well as access to experts of the highest caliber. The attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation in hiring and retaining experts and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals, such as a radiologist and pathologist who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of the lung tissue that is typical of asbestos law and litigation exposure. A pulmonologist may also be a witness to symptoms like difficulty breathing that are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide an in-depth report of the plaintiff's job background, including an examination of his or her tax, social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

A forensic engineer or environmental scientist may be required to clarify the cause of the asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the asbestos litigation cases exposure was not in the workplace, but was brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or the outside air.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to determine the financial losses incurred by the victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to their illness and the effect it has had on their life. They can also testify to expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person is no longer able to complete.

It is important for defendants to challenge the expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they've given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. Experts can lose credibility with the jury when their testimony is repeated.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also request summary judgment if they show that the evidence does not show that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge will not 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 a meaningful discovery. The duration between exposure and Asbestos Class Action Litigation illness can be measured by decades. Therefore, determining the facts on which to make a case requires a review of a person's entire employment history. This usually involves an exhaustive analysis of social security and tax records, union, and financial records, as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms might be caused by a different disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys employed this strategy to deny responsibility and obtain large sums. As the defense bar evolved, courts have generally resisted this strategy. This has been particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on the lack of evidence.

A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating the severity and length of the illness as well as the type of the exposure. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to receive higher damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

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