10 Tips To Know About Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm regularly participate in national conferences and are proficient in the myriad issues that arise when asbestos litigation, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has demonstrated that exposure to asbestos can cause lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma as and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims statutes limit the time frame within which a victim can make an action. In asbestos cases, statute of limitations differs according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury claims because asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to be apparent.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death in the case of wrongful deaths) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their families need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be considered. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. This is the deadline that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failing to do so could cause the case to be closed. The statute of limitations is different from state to state and laws differ greatly. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos cases, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They may say, for example, that plaintiffs should have been aware or were aware of their exposure to asbestos and that they had a duty of notification to their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another possible defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the resources or means to warn of the dangers of the product. This is a complex case that relies heavily on the available evidence. In California for instance, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and were not able to to provide sufficient warnings.

In general, it is best to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. In certain situations, it may make sense to bring a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. It usually has to do with relate to the location of the employer or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is recognized in some jurisdictions, but not all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped the law. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead established the new standard under which manufacturers are required to inform consumers if they know that its product is likely to be dangerous for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that its final users will realize that risk.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However this isn't the end. For one, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims made on the basis of negligence or strict liability and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. For example, in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he is likely to take a different view of the bare-metal defense. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He had worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other contexts like those that involve state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and require skilled attorneys with a deep understanding of medical and legal issues as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. The attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in a variety of asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, preparing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation in identifying and retaining experts, and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony in deposition and at trial.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can be able to testify about symptoms, like difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide an in-depth report of the plaintiff's job history, including an examination of his or her tax social security, union and job records.

An forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be necessary to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was brought home on workers' clothing or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to establish the monetary loss suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to illness and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that an individual is no longer able to perform.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially when they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of other asbestos-related claims.  North Las Vegas asbestos lawyers  can lose credibility with the jury when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants may also seek summary judgement in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. A judge won't give summary judgment just because a defendant points out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a significant discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can 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 often involves a thorough analysis of social security, union, tax, and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, a defendant's ability to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are caused by a disease other than mesothelioma can have significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys employed this strategy to deny responsibility and get large awards. As the defense bar grew, courts have largely rejected this strategy. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges often reject 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 includes assessing the duration and extent of exposure, as in addition to the severity of any diagnosed disease. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to suffer more 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 lawyers have served as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts to handle asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients in understanding the risks associated with this type of litigation. We assist them in establishing internal programs designed to proactively identify potential liability and safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how we can safeguard your company's interests.