CARVIS.KR

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys regularly speak at national conferences and are well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise in the defense of asbestos cases, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations sets a deadline for how long after an accident or injury, the victim can file a lawsuit. For asbestos-related cases, the statute of limitations differs by state. They are also different from other personal injury claims since asbestos-related illnesses may take a long time to be apparent.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitation begins at the time of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why the families of victims need to work as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be taken into account. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the deadline by which the victim must start a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit will result in the case being barred. The statute of limitations differs from state to state and the laws differ widely. However, most states allow between one and six year after the date of diagnosis.

During an asbestos case when the defendants often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They could argue that, for instance, plaintiffs should have been aware or had knowledge of their asbestos exposure and had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases, and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

Another defense that could be used in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the resources or the means to warn of the dangers posed by the product. This is a difficult case and relies on the evidence available. For instance it has been successfully presented in California that defendants didn't possess "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is recommended to file the asbestos lawsuit (botdb.Win) in the state of the victim's home. However, there are situations in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in another state. This usually has to do with the place of the employer, or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a common strategy employed by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as bare metal, they had no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties at a later date, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is recognized in some jurisdictions but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead established the standard that requires a manufacturer to warn if they know that their integrated product is unsafe for its intended use and have no reason to think that the users who purchase the product will be aware of this danger.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However it's 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 is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader interpretation of the bare metal defense. For instance in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to determine whether that state recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing parts at an Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third view of the defense of bare-metal. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by contractors of third party which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare-metal defenses can be applied 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 lawsuits are complex and require experienced lawyers with a deep knowledge of both legal and medical issues as well as access to top expert witnesses. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in a variety of asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies in identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs' expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals, such as a radiologist and pathologist who testify on X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of the lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also testify regarding symptoms, like breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide an in-depth account of the plaintiff's work background, including an investigation of their tax, social security documents, union and job information.

A forensic engineer or environmental science expert may be required to explain the source of the asbestos attorneys exposure. Experts from these fields can assist the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or air outside.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to assess the financial losses incurred by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the effect it affected their life. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that a person is no longer able to perform.

It is crucial that defendants challenge plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially if they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos claims. These experts can lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants may also request summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. A judge will not grant summary judgement just because a defendant identifies weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the development of the disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts upon which to base an argument it is essential to examine an individual's employment history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's social security, tax and union records, as well as financial records, as well as interviews with family members and coworkers.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to show that the plaintiff's symptoms could be due to another disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this method to avoid responsibility and receive large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have generally resisted this strategy. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is therefore essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating the severity and duration of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance, a worker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer more damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers contractors, distributors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos related litigation. 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 cases can be complex and expensive. We help our clients to understand the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we assist them to create internal programs that are proactive and identify liability and safety concerns. Contact us to find out how we can safeguard the interests of your company.