Notes

Why Nobody Cares About Asbestos Litigation Defense
Asbestos Litigation Defense

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

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

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases there is a statute that limits the time limit within which a victim can file a claim. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations differ by state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits because asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to be apparent.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in the case of wrongful deaths) rather than at the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be considered. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the date that the victim has to make a claim. Failure to do so will result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies in each state, and laws differ greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In asbestos cases in which the defendants are involved, they will typically try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They may say for instance that plaintiffs should have been aware or knew about their exposure to asbestos and were under the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits. It can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also argue that they didn't have the resources or means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated case and relies on the evidence available. In California, for example it was argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not give adequate warnings.

In general, it is recommended to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state where the victim's home. In some cases, it may make sense to file a lawsuit in a different state from the victim's. This usually has something to be related to where the employer is located or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing products that were added by other parties later for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense has been embraced in certain states, but it's not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped the law. The Court did not accept the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead formulated an obligation for the manufacturer to notify customers when they know that their integrated product is unsafe for its intended use and have no reason to think that users will be aware of the danger.

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

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

In a similar case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has stated that he would take the third approach to the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma following working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by contractors of third party, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that bare-metal defenses can be applied to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges use the bare metal defense in other situations like those that involve tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires lawyers with vast knowledge of both law and medicine as well as access to experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, preparing strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and bringing in experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants expert testimony at trials and depositions.


Most asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could also testify regarding symptoms, such as breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, which includes a review of job, union, tax, and social security documents.

A forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be required to clarify the cause of the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was brought home through clothing worn by workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to determine the financial losses incurred by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person has lost due to disease and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills as well as the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person can no longer perform.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge the expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they've given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of other asbestos-related claims. These experts can lose credibility with the jury when their testimony is repeated.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also apply for summary judgment if they can demonstrate that the evidence does not show that the plaintiff suffered injuries caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that getting meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in decades. Thus, establishing the facts on which to make a case requires a review of the 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 patients often develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms might be caused by a different disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this method to deny responsibility and obtain large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has evolved and diversified, this strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss claims based on the absence of evidence.

As a result, an in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is essential for a successful asbestos litigation defense. This includes evaluating both the severity and length of the disease as well as the type of the exposure. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer greater damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation for product manufacturers, suppliers and distributors contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have extensive experience 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 litigation can be complex and costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs to detect potential safety and liability issues. Contact us today to learn more about how we can protect your company's interests.

Here's my website: https://www.asbestoslitigation.top/