Notes

Responsible For The Asbestos Litigation Defense Budget? 12 Tips On How To Spend Your Money
Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to speak at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise in defending asbestos cases.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma as well as lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation sets a deadline for the length of time that follows an accident or injury, the victim is able to file an action. For asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different than other personal injury cases because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take years to show up.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins at the time of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families should seek out as soon 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. The statute of limitations is the date by which the victim must start a lawsuit. In the event of a delay, it will result the lawsuit being barred. asbestos law & litigation for filing a lawsuit differs from state to state and laws vary greatly. However, most states allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

During an asbestos case, the defendants will often attempt to invoke the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure and therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and can be difficult for the victim to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case could be able to claim that they did not have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a difficult case that relies heavily on the available evidence. In California, for example, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not give adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. In some cases it might be beneficial to bring a lawsuit in a different state from the victim's. It usually has to do with the place of the employer or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as raw metal, they were under no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials that were added by other parties at a later date for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has changed the law. The Court rejected the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead created an entirely new standard that states that a manufacturer has a duty to inform consumers if they know that its integrated product will be harmful for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

Although this change in law may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the tale. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes such as the Jones Act.

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

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will take a different approach to the bare-metal defense. In that case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that bare-metal defenses can be applied to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges use the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with vast knowledge of both law and medicine and access to experts of the highest caliber. Attorneys at 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 in identifying and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

Typically, asbestos cases require the 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 may be able to testify about symptoms, like breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide an in-depth account of the plaintiff's work history, including an examination of his or her tax, social security documents, union and job information.

It is possible 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 at the workplace and instead was ingested on workers' clothing or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to determine the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a victim has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person cannot do.

It is crucial that defendants challenge the plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on dozens or hundreds of asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff was injured by exposure to the products of the defendant. However, a judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant cites weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.


Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that getting an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The lag between exposure and the onset of the disease could be measured in years. To establish the facts on which to build an argument it is essential to review an individual's work history. This usually involves an exhaustive review of social security and tax records, union and financial records, as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to prove that the plaintiff's symptoms could be due to another disease than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and get large sums. However, as the defense bar has evolved the strategy has been largely rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges often dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is crucial to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the length and nature of the exposure as in addition to the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to suffer more damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, contractors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos-related litigation. Our attorneys have been 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 expensive. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that will proactively identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us to find out how we can safeguard the interests of your company.

Read More: https://www.asbestoslitigation.top/