Notes

Ten Situations In Which You'll Want To Know About Asbestos Litigation Defense
Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The firm's lawyers regularly speak at national conferences and are knowledgeable in the myriad of issues that arise when the defense of asbestos cases such as jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proved that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations defines a time frame for the time after an accident or injury, the victim is able to bring an action. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations varies by state and is different from other personal injury cases due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death claims 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.

There are a myriad of aspects to consider when making an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the time limit that the victim has to start a lawsuit. Failure to do so could result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies by state, and the laws vary greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In asbestos cases 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 knew about their exposure to asbestos and were under a duty of notification to their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case could be able to claim that they didn't have the resources or means to warn people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated case that relies heavily on the available evidence. In California for instance it was argument that defendants did not have "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. In some cases it may be appropriate to make a claim in a state other than the victim's. It usually has to do with the location of the employer or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that because their products left the plant in bare steel, they did not have a duty to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, such as thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is recognized in some jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court did not accept the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to warn if it knows that its product will be hazardous for the purpose it was designed for and does not have any reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However, this is not the end. First it is that 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, like 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 whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in that case worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third perspective of bare metal defense. 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 third-party contractors which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges use the bare metal defense in other contexts for example, those involving tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with a vast knowledge of both law and medicine, as well as accessing experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys EWH have years of experience helping clients in a variety of asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony in deposition and during trial.

Typically what asbestos litigation pros and cons require the testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist and pathologist who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can be able to testify about symptoms, like difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide an in-depth account of the plaintiff's work background, including an examination of his or her tax and social security documents, union and job information.

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

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to determine the monetary losses incurred by victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to disease and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify about expenses like medical bills as well as the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that one cannot perform anymore.

It is important for defendants to challenge expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. These experts can lose credibility before jurors if their testimony is repeated.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also request summary judgment when they prove 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 grant summary judgment just because the defendant points to holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the appearance of disease can be measured in decades. To determine the facts on which to base a case, it is necessary to look over an individual's job background. This usually involves an exhaustive review of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to show that the plaintiff's symptoms are caused by a disease other than mesothelioma can have significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and get large amounts of money. As the defense bar grew, courts have largely rejected this strategy. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

As a result, an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes evaluating the severity and duration of the illness as well as the nature of the exposure. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to receive higher damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and costly. We help our clients to understand the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that can detect liability and safety issues. Contact us to learn how we can help protect the interests of your company.

Website: https://www.asbestoslitigation.top/