CARVIS.KR

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the numerous issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos cases.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos can lead to lung diseases and damage. This includes mesothelioma, and less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitation sets a deadline for how long after an accident or injury, the victim is able to file an action. For asbestos the statute of limitations is different by state and differs from in other personal injury lawsuits because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and asbestos attorney-related diseases the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis (or death, in cases of wrongful death) rather than at the time of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason that victims and their families should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

There are a variety of factors to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the time limit by which the victim must make a claim. In the event of a delay, it will result the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies from state to state and laws differ widely. However, most states allow between one and six years after the time that the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos cases when the defendants often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They could argue that, for instance, plaintiffs should have been aware or knew about their exposure to asbestos attorney and were under a duty of notification to their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits, and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

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

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's residence. However, there are circumstances where it may make sense to file the lawsuit in a different state. This is usually connected with the location of the employer, or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials that were added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense has been embraced in certain areas, but it is 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 did not accept the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which manufacturers are required to inform consumers if they know that its integrated product will be dangerous for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that the end customers will be aware of the risk.

Although this change in law could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to win claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. For one, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims made on the basis of 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 pursuing an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the Asbestos Multi District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in the case was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines at the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third view of bare metal defense. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that was 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 like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges apply the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require skilled attorneys who have a thorough understanding of medical and legal issues and access to top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, which includes investigating claims, developing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and bringing in experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical lung tissue scarring that is due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties and coughing, which are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, which includes a review of job, union tax, social security records.

An forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be required to explain the cause of the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and was instead brought home on workers' clothing or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many of the plaintiffs' lawyers will bring in economic loss experts to assess the financial loss suffered by the victims. These experts will be able to determine how much money a victim has lost due to illness and the effect it affected their life. They can also testify to costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person is no longer able to complete.

It is important for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially in cases where they've testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos-related cases. Experts may lose credibility before jurors if their testimony is repeated.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also request summary judgment if they can prove that the evidence does not show that the plaintiff suffered any injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't grant summary judgment just because the defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases means that an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in years. Therefore, determining the facts on which to make a case requires a thorough review of a person's entire employment history. This typically involves a thorough examination of social security as well as tax, union and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with less serious illnesses like asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are caused by another disease than mesothelioma may have a significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and get large sums. However as the defense bar has grown, this approach has been generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

This is why an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is essential to an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the length and extent of exposure, as and the degree of any diagnosed illness. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to receive higher damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be a bit complicated and expensive. We help our clients recognize the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we collaborate with them to develop internal programs that can identify liability and safety concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our company can safeguard your company's interests.