Notes

Three Greatest Moments In Asbestos Litigation Defense History
Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. 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 shown that exposure to asbestos can cause lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma as well as lesser illnesses like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury claims statutes limit the time period after the date a victim is able to file an action. For asbestos the statute of limitations is different by state and is different from other personal injury cases because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take years to show up.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other 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 time of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their family members should consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are many aspects that must be considered. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. The statute of limitations is the time limit by which the victim must make a claim. In the event of a delay, it could result in the case being thrown out. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies in each state, and laws differ widely however, most states allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

During an asbestos case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They might argue for instance that the plaintiffs should have known or had knowledge of their asbestos exposure and had 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 may also argue that they didn't have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence that is available. For instance, it has been successfully presented in California that defendants didn't have "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's residence. In some cases it may be appropriate to bring 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 tactic used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that since their products left the factory as bare steel, they didn't have a duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense has been embraced in certain states, but it's not permitted under federal law in all states.

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


While this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to win 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 made on the basis of 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 to pursue an expanded interpretation of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to adopt the third perspective of the defense of bare metal. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. asbestos litigation trends was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare-metal defenses can be applied 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 litigation is complex and require skilled attorneys with a deep knowledge of legal and medical issues as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience in assisting clients with a variety of asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies, identifying and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony in deposition and during trial.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring that is caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties that are similar to those of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a thorough description of the plaintiff's employment background, which includes an examination of his or her tax social security, union and job records.

It may be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the source of asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought home by workers' clothing or air outside.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to establish the monetary losses incurred by the victims. They can estimate the amount of money a victim has lost due to their illness and its impact on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring a person to take care of household chores that one cannot perform anymore.

It is essential for defendants to challenge experts of the plaintiff, particularly in cases where they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of other asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts could lose credibility with jurors.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also seek summary judgment if they can prove that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff was injured caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge is not likely to grant summary judgement just because a defendant points out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in years. To establish the facts on which to base a claim it is essential to examine an individual's employment history. This often involves a thorough analysis of social security and tax records, union and financial records as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

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

In the past, certain attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and obtain large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has developed the strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss such claims due to the absence of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is crucial for a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes evaluating the severity and length of the disease and the extent of the exposure. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to receive higher damage than someone who has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers contractors, distributors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos-related litigation. Our attorneys have served as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts to manage asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we work with them to create internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how we can safeguard your company's interests.

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