The Three Greatest Moments In Asbestos Litigation Defense History

Asbestos Litigation Defense

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

Research has proven that asbestos lawyers exposure can cause lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser illnesses like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases statutes limit the time limit within the date a victim is able to file a claim. For asbestos lawyers, the statute of limitations is different by state and differs from other personal injury cases because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis, or death in the case of wrongful death instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their family members should consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the deadline that the victim must make a claim by, and failing to file a lawsuit by the deadline will result in the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies according to state, and the laws differ widely however, most states allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In an asbestos case defendants typically make use of the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. For instance, they could argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure and thus were required to inform their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma cases and isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

Another possible defense in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the resources or the means to inform the public about the dangers associated with 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.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. In certain situations it may be appropriate to file a lawsuit in a different state 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 defense of bare metal is a standard strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances added by other parties at a later date for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in a few areas, but it is not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered that. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead established a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its integrated product will be dangerous for its intended use and does not have any reason to believe that its final customers will be aware of the risk.

While this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. First it is that the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims founded on negligence or strict liability and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing components at a Texaco refinery.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he'll take a different approach to the bare-metal defense. 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, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that bare metal defenses apply 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 lawsuits are complex and require skilled attorneys with a thorough understanding of medical and legal issues as well as access to top expert witnesses. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos lawsuits litigation, including investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and bringing in experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

Most asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify about symptoms such as difficulty breathing that are similar to those of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide a full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, such as a review of employment, union and tax records as well as social security documents.

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

Many plaintiffs' lawyers will bring in economic loss experts to establish the monetary losses suffered by the victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money that a victim lost as a result of their illness and its impact on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses like medical bills and the price of hiring a person to take care of household chores that one is unable to do anymore.

It is essential that defendants challenge plaintiffs experts, particularly in the event that they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. These experts can lose credibility with the jury if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants may also request 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 give summary judgment just because a defendant points out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make an accurate discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in decades. Thus, establishing the facts on which to build a case requires a review of a person's entire employment history. This often involves a thorough examination of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have used this approach to avoid responsibility and receive large sums. As the defense bar grew, courts have largely rejected this method. This is particularly relevant in federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on lack of evidence.

Because of this, a careful evaluation of each potential defendant is essential to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as and the severity of any diagnosed disease. 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 Litigation Team defends asbestos-related lawsuits for manufacturers suppliers and distributors contractors, employers, and property owners. Our attorneys have been appointed as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are regularly appointed as liaison counsel by courts in order to manage asbestos dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complex and costly. We help our clients be aware of the risks associated with this type of litigation and we work with them to create internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us to find out how we can help protect your business's interests.