Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the numerous issues that arise when litigating asbestos cases.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos can cause lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma as well as less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims, a statute limits the time frame within the date a victim is able to file an action. For asbestos, the statute of limitations varies by state and differs from in other personal injury claims because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death in the case of wrongful deaths) instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

There are a variety of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim must submit the lawsuit by, and failure to file the lawsuit will result in the case being dismissed. The statute of limitation differs from state to state, and the laws vary greatly. However, most allow between one and six year after the date of diagnosis.

In an asbestos-related case specializes in asbestos litigation which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For instance, they might claim that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known about their exposure and thus had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits. It it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another defense that could be used in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the resources or means to warn of the dangers posed by the product. This is a complicated argument that is largely based on the evidence available. For instance, it was successfully argued in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to make an asbestos litigation cases lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. However, there are certain circumstances in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. This usually has to do with the place of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a common strategy employed by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that because their products left the factory as bare steel, they didn't have a duty to inform about the dangers of asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, for instance thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense has been accepted in some states, but it's not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court has ruled against the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule, and instead established an entirely new standard that states that a manufacturer has a duty to warn if it knows that its integrated product will be dangerous for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that the end customers will be aware of the risk.

While this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. First reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are based on negligence or strict liability, and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive reading of the bare metal defense. For instance, in the latest asbestos litigation MDL case in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter, and was exposed to turbines and Asbestos Litigation Defense switchgear at the Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has stated that he would take the third approach to bare metal defense. In that case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case ruled that the bare metal defense applies to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with a vast knowledge of both law and medicine and access to experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, developing strategies for managing litigation and budgets, as well as identifying and hiring experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants with expert testimony in trials and depositions.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that show the lung tissue being damaged that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify on symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a detailed description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an analysis of their tax social security, union and job records.

An forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be required to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and was instead brought home on the clothing of workers or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers hire economic loss experts to calculate the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to disease and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the price of hiring someone to do household chores that one cannot perform anymore.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially when they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos litigation online-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility among jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgement if they can show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the products of the defendant. A judge will not issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant identifies weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that getting significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in years. As such, establishing the facts that will make a case requires a review of an individual's entire work history. This typically involves a thorough analysis of social security and tax records, union and financial records as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff's symptoms could be caused by a different disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have used this approach to deny responsibility and get large awards. As the defense bar grew, courts have generally resisted this approach. This has been particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have often dismissed claims based on the lack of evidence.

This is why an in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is crucial to a successful asbestos defense. This includes assessing the duration and extent of exposure, as well as the degree of any diagnosed illness. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to suffer more damage than someone who has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We help our clients be aware of the risks associated with 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 company can protect your company's interests.