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 recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The attorneys of the Firm regularly speak at national conferences and are well-versed in the many issues that arise when asbestos litigation that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos can cause lung damage and cause lung disease. This includes mesothelioma, as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitation defines a time frame for the length of time that follows an accident or injury, the victim is able to file a lawsuit. In asbestos cases, the statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury claims as asbestos-related illnesses can take a long time to develop.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related illnesses and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations clock starts on the date of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death claims instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be taken into account. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the deadline that the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result the lawsuit being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies by state, and the laws differ greatly, but most allow for between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In asbestos cases defendants frequently employ the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. For Philadelphia asbestos lawyer , they may claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure, and therefore had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma litigation, and it isn't easy for the victim to prove.

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

In general, it is recommended to start the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. However, there are certain situations in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in a different state. This is usually to do with where the employer is located or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties later like thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense has been accepted in some 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 the law. The Court rejected the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule and instead, the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to inform consumers if they know that its product is likely to be harmful for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that the end customers will be aware of the risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment. However this isn't the end of the story. For one it is that the DeVries decision does not apply 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, like the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader interpretation of the bare metal defense. For example in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing equipment at an Texaco refinery.


In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will take a different view of the defense of bare metal. 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 apply the bare metal defense in other cases.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require experienced lawyers with a thorough knowledge of both legal and medical issues as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation as well as hiring and retaining experts and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and during trial.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals like a radiologist and pathologist who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify on symptoms, such as breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, which includes an examination of the worker's union and tax records as well as social security documents.

It could be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defendants to argue that asbestos exposure did not occur at the workplace, but brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or the outside air.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to establish the monetary loss suffered by the victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that a person cannot complete.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially when they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility among jurors.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also seek summary judgment when they show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered any injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not grant summary judgment just because the defendant has pointed out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that getting an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the appearance of the disease could be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to build a claim it is important to review an individual's work history. This involves a thorough review of the individual's tax, social security and union financial records, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this the capacity of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to a different illness that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have employed this strategy to avoid liability and receive large awards. As the defense bar evolved, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the length and nature of the exposure, as well as the severity of any diagnosed disease. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer more damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends suppliers, manufacturers contractors, distributors and property owners as well as employers in asbestos related litigation. Our attorneys have been appointed 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 costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation and we work with them to develop internal programs that are proactive and detect liability and safety issues. Contact us to find out how we can help protect your business's interests.

Here's my website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9HgfixudtY