Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a 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 defending asbestos cases.

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

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury claims, a statute limits the time frame within the date a victim is able to make an action. For asbestos, the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury lawsuits because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take years to show up.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death in wrongful death cases) rather than at the date of 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.

When you file a Asbestos litigation cases; www.themcwars.org, lawsuit, there are many things that need to be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failure to file the lawsuit will result in the case being dismissed. The statute of limitations varies from state to state and laws differ greatly. However, most states allow between one and six years after the time that the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos case defendants typically make use of the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. They might argue for instance that plaintiffs should have been aware or asbestos litigation cases had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos class action litigation and were under a duty of notification to their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits. It can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another possible defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants did not have the resources or means to warn people of the dangers posed by the product. This is a complicated case that relies heavily on the evidence available. In California, for example it was argument that defendants did not have "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim lives. However, there are circumstances where it may make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. This is usually connected with the location of the employer or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a common strategy employed by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos exposure litigation litigation. The bare metal defense argues that since their products left the factory as bare steel, they did not have a duty to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered that. The Court did not accept the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its product is likely to be hazardous for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that its final users will be aware of that risk.

This modification in law makes it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However, this is not the end. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence, and therefore not brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. For instance, in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether that state recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines at an Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he is likely to take a different approach to the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in the 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 including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case ruled that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges use the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with a extensive knowledge of law and medicine, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, preparing strategies for managing litigation and budgets, identifying and hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants expert testimony at trials and depositions.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a detailed description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an examination of his or her tax, social security, union and job records.

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

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will bring in economic loss experts to establish the monetary losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and asbestos litigation cases its effect on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills as well as the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that one can no longer perform.

It is important that plaintiffs challenge defendants experts, particularly when they have testified to hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility among jurors.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also seek summary judgment when they demonstrate that the evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was injured due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't accept summary judgment simply because the defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a significant discovery. The time between exposure and the appearance of the disease could be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to base a claim, it is necessary to look over an individual's job history. This involves a thorough review of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and coworkers.

asbestos litigation wiki patients often develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Due to this the capacity of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have used this approach to deny responsibility and get large sums. However as the defense bar has evolved the strategy has been largely rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss claims based on the absence of evidence.

Because of this, an accurate assessment of every potential defendant is essential for a successful asbestos defense. This includes assessing the length and extent of exposure as and the degree of any diagnosed illness. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer greater damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, contractors and property owners as well as employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have years of experience as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently 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 work with them to formulate internal programs to identify potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our firm can protect your company's interests.