Notes

The No. 1 Question Anyone Working In Asbestos Litigation Defense Needs To Know How To Answer
Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise when defending asbestos cases.

Research has demonstrated that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and cause lung disease. This includes mesothelioma as well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims statutes limit the time period after which a victim may make a claim. For asbestos the statute of limitations is different 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 delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis or death in the case of wrongful death rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why the families of victims must work as quickly as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be considered. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the date by which the victim must file a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit will result in the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies according to state, and the laws vary greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In asbestos cases, defendants often make use of the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they could claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure and thus were required to inform their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma cases and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the resources or means to inform the public about the dangers posed by the product. This is a complicated argument and largely depends on the evidence that is available. In California, for example it was claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected to provide sufficient warnings.

In general, it's best to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. In certain circumstances it might be beneficial to bring a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. It usually has to do with the place of the employer, or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no duty to warn of the risks of asbestos-containing products added by other parties at a later time, such as thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions but not all.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has changed the law. The Court did not accept manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead established a standard that requires a manufacturer to warn when they know that their integrated product is unsafe for its intended purpose and there is no reason to believe that the users who purchase the product will be aware of this risk.

Although this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. First reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are founded on 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 understanding of the bare-metal defense. For instance, in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia the case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to 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 while working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by third-party contractors including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and require experienced lawyers who have a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues, as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in a variety of asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation in finding and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony in depositions and in court.

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 due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to those of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide an in-depth account of the plaintiff's work background, including an investigation of their tax, social security, union and job records.

It could be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or by airborne particles.

Many plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to assess the financial losses suffered by the victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that the person can no longer perform.


It is essential that defendants challenge the plaintiffs experts, particularly if they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility among jurors.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also seek summary judgment when they prove that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered any injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge will not give summary judgment just because a defendant has pointed out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make an accurate discovery. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in decades. To determine the facts on which to base a claim it is essential to review an individual's work background. Columbus asbestos attorneys You Tube includes a thorough analysis of the individual's social security, tax and union financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and coworkers.

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 another disease than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this method to avoid responsibility and receive large awards. As the defense bar evolved, courts have largely rejected this approach. This is particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have routinely dismissed such claims due to the absence of evidence.

A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is crucial for a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating the severity and length of the illness as well as the type of the exposure. For instance a carpenter with mesothelioma may be awarded more damages than one who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this type of litigation and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that are proactive and identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how we can protect your company's interests.

Read More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVIt1eqOIQ4