Asbestos Litigation Defense

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

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos can cause lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma as well as less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases there is a statute that limits the time period after which a victim may file a claim. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They also differ from other personal injury claims as asbestos-related illnesses can take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is why the families of victims should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York Asbestos Lawyer (Squareblogs.Net).

There are a myriad of factors to consider when making an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the date at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. In the event of a delay, it could result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies according to state, and the laws vary greatly, 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 frequently use the statute of limitation as a defense to liability. For instance, they might claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma litigation, and it isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another possible defense in an asbestos case is that the defendants didn't have the means or resources to inform the public about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence that is available. In California for instance it was argument that defendants did not have "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's best to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to make a claim in a state other than the victim's. This is usually connected with the place of the employer, or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing materials that were added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense has been embraced in certain states, but it's not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court did not accept 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 is likely to be dangerous for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that its final users will realize that risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However this isn't the end of the story. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence, and therefore not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. For example, in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will adopt a third view of the 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 third-party contractors, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts like those that involve tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require experienced lawyers with a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues, as well as access to top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, preparing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, as well as identifying and hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants with expert testimony in trials and depositions.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals like a radiologist and pathologist who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to be a witness to symptoms like difficulty breathing, which are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos lawyers-related diseases. Experts can provide a detailed report of the plaintiff's job history, including an examination of his or her tax and social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

It could be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can help defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was ingested on the clothing of workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs employ economic loss experts to calculate the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a victim has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on their lifestyle. 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 plaintiffs challenge defendants expert witnesses, especially if they have testified on dozens or hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants may also seek summary judgment if they can show that the evidence does not establish that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. However the judge will not grant summary judgment just because the defendant has pointed out gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make an accurate discovery. The time between exposure and the appearance of the disease can be measured in decades. As such, establishing the facts that will make a case requires a review of the entire work history. This typically involves a thorough examination of social security and tax records, union and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms stem from a disease other than mesothelioma could be of significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have employed this strategy to avoid liability and receive large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has grown, this approach has been largely rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely reject such claims due to the absence of evidence.

A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as and the degree of any diagnosed illness. For example, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer more damage than someone who has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients recognize the risks involved in this type of litigation and we assist them to create internal programs that will proactively identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our company can protect your company's interests.