20 Insightful Quotes About Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise in litigating asbestos cases.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations defines a time frame for the length of time that follows an injury or accident, the victim is allowed to bring an action. For asbestos-related cases, the statutes of limitations differ by state. They also differ from other personal injury claims because asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to develop.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer (Federatedjournals`s latest blog post).

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of aspects that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the deadline by which the victim must start a lawsuit. In the event of a delay, it could result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit is different from state to state and laws differ widely. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the date of diagnosis.

In an asbestos case defendants typically use the statute of limitation as a defense to liability. They might argue for instance that the plaintiffs should have known or were aware of their asbestos exposure and had an obligation to notify their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases, and it can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case may also claim that they did not have the resources or the means to warn people about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence that is available. For example, it was successfully argued in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. In some cases it might be beneficial to make a claim in a different state than the victim's. This is usually to be related to the location of the employer or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos lawsuits.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as unfinished metal, they had no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing products added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court has ruled against the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn consumers if it is aware that its integrated product will be hazardous for its intended use and has no reason to believe that its end users will be aware of that risk.

Although this change in law could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the tale. For one, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are founded on 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 to seek a more expansive understanding of the bare-metal defense. For instance in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to decide whether that state recognizes the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in the Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has stated that he would adopt the third perspective of the defense of bare-metal. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare metal defenses apply to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges use the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

asbestos attorneys litigation is a complex affair and requires attorneys with vast knowledge of both law and medicine as well as access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience in assisting clients with various asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation, hiring and retaining experts and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony in deposition and at trial.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist and pathologist who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a detailed report of the plaintiff's job background, which includes an investigation of their tax social security, union and job records.

A forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be required to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or by airborne particles.

Many plaintiffs' lawyers will bring experts from the field to determine the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to disease and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that the person can no longer perform.

It is important for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially in cases where they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment if they can demonstrate that the evidence doesn't establish that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge is not likely to grant summary judgement just because a defendant identifies holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The delays involved in asbestos attorneys cases mean that getting an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The lag between exposure and the appearance of the disease can be measured in decades. Therefore, determining the facts upon which to make a case requires a review of a person's entire employment history. This involves a thorough review of the individual's tax, social security and union financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, a defendant's ability to show that the plaintiff's symptoms are caused by an illness other than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and get large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss such claims due to the absence of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is essential for a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating the severity and length of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer more damages than someone 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 lawyers have years of experience in the role of National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are regularly appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be a bit complicated and costly. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we work with them to create internal programs that will proactively identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how our firm can protect your company's interests.