Asbestos Litigation Defense: The Good The Bad And The Ugly

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm regularly speak at national conferences and are proficient in the myriad issues that arise when defending asbestos cases, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proven that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation defines a time frame for the length of time that follows an injury or accident, the victim is able to file a lawsuit. For asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different from in other personal injury lawsuits because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take years to show up.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock starts on the date of diagnosis or death in the case of wrongful death rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason that victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit (Https://trade-britanica.trade/wiki/7_simple_changes_thatll_make_the_difference_with_Your_asbestos_lawyers), there are a variety of factors that must be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the date at which the victim has to start a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result in the case being thrown out. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies from state to state and laws differ widely. However, most allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

During an asbestos case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically try to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. They might argue, for example, that plaintiffs should have been aware or were aware of their exposure to asbestos and were under the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma litigation and can be difficult for the victim to prove.

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

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. However, there are certain situations in which it might be beneficial to file the lawsuit in a different state. It usually has to do with the location of the employer or where the person was exposed to asbestos lawsuits.

Bare Metal

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

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court rejected the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead established a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn consumers if it is aware that its product will be harmful for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that the end users will be aware of that risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However it's not the end of the road. 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 like the Jones Act.

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

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he will take a different view of the bare-metal defense. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma while working on equipment that had been 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 similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts, such as those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, preparing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and hiring experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

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

It may be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the source of exposure to asbestos. These experts can aid the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or air outside.

Many plaintiffs' attorneys will employ economic loss experts to assess the financial losses incurred by victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to their disease and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify on expenses such as the cost of medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that one can no longer perform.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially in cases where they've testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility among jurors.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also apply for summary judgment if they can prove that the evidence doesn't establish that the plaintiff was injured from exposure to the defendant's product. A judge won't give summary judgment just because a defendant points out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that getting an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to base an argument it is important to look over an individual's job history. This often involves a thorough review of social security, union, tax and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Due to this the capacity of a defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff's symptoms could be due to a different illness than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys employed this strategy to deny responsibility and obtain large amounts of money. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have largely rejected this strategy. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges regularly reject such claims due to the absence of evidence.

This is why an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is essential for a successful asbestos defense. This includes assessing the severity and length of the illness as well as the type of the exposure. For instance, a worker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer more damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

asbestos lawyers cases can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how our firm can protect your business's interests.