CARVIS.KR

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos attorneys litigation. The Firm's attorneys regularly participate in national conferences and are proficient in the myriad issues that arise when defending asbestos cases such as jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proved that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury claims there is a statute that limits the time limit within the date a victim is able to file a claim. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations varies by state and is different from in other personal injury lawsuits because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma and other asbestos attorneys-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why the families of victims need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim has to submit the lawsuit by, and failure to do so will cause the case to be dismissed. The statute of limitation varies from state to state and laws differ greatly. However, most states allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos case, defendants often make use of the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure, and therefore had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases and it can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

Another defense that could be used in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants did not have the resources or the means to inform the public about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument that is largely based on the evidence that is available. In California, for example, it was successfully argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected give adequate warnings.

In general, it is recommended to start the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's residence. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to bring a lawsuit in a different state from the victim's. It usually has to do with be related to where the employer is located or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. It asserts that because their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing materials added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in certain jurisdictions, but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered that. The Court has rejected manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead established a standard that requires a manufacturer to warn when they are aware that their product is hazardous for its intended purpose and have no reason to think that the end users will realize this danger.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However, this is not the end of the story. For one reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims 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 pursue a wider understanding of the bare-metal defense. In the asbestos lawsuits Multi District Litigation in Philadelphia for instance the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim worked as a carpenter and was exposed to turbines and switchgear at an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he'll take a different view of the bare-metal defense. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges apply the bare-metal defense in other cases.

Defendants' Experts

asbestos lawyers litigation is complex and require skilled lawyers with a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have decades of experience helping clients in various asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management plans, finding and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may be able to testify about symptoms, like difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide a detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union, tax, and social security records.

It is possible to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was brought home on the clothing of workers or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to assess the financial loss suffered by victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money that a victim has lost due to their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses like medical bills as well as the cost of hiring a person to take care of household chores that a person is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge the expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. Experts may lose credibility with the jury when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence does NOT show that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. A judge won't issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant points out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in decades. Therefore, determining the facts upon which to build a case will require a thorough examination of the entire work history. This usually involves an exhaustive review of social security, union, tax, and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms might be caused by a different disease than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this strategy to avoid liability and receive large awards. As the defense bar grew and the courts have generally rejected this strategy. This is particularly evident in federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims due to the absence of evidence.

As a result, a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential to an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the duration and the nature of the exposure, as well as the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded a higher amount of damages than one who has only had asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the risks associated with this type of litigation. We assist them in establishing internal programs designed to proactively identify potential safety and liability issues. Contact us today to learn more about how our company can protect your company's interests.