Why Nobody Cares About Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys regularly speak at national conferences and are well-versed in the many issues that arise in the defense of asbestos cases such as jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

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

Statute of limitations

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

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma as well as 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 cases instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why the families of victims should seek out as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos defense litigation lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the deadline that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline will cause the case to be dismissed. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies by state, and the laws differ greatly however, most states allow between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

During an asbestos litigation online case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have known about their exposure and thus had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also claim that they didn't have the resources or means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complex case that relies heavily on the evidence available. For example it has been successfully made in California that defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is recommended to start the asbestos litigation paralegal lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. However, there are certain circumstances in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in another state. This usually has to do with the place of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that, because their products left the factory as bare steel, they didn't have a duty to inform about the dangers of asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, such as thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions but not everywhere.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead established the new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn consumers if it is aware that its product will be hazardous for the purpose it was designed for and does not have any reason to believe that its end users will be aware of that risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However it's not the end of the story. For one, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are founded on negligence or strict liability, and Asbestos Litigation Defense 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 defense of bare-metal. For instance in the asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who was exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos-containing parts at the Texaco refining facility.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he'll 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 worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges apply the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge as well as access to experts of the highest caliber. The attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in a variety of asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring that is caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of 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 a an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, such as an examination of the worker's union and tax records as well as social security documents.

It is possible to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defendants to argue that asbestos exposure did not occur at the workplace, but was brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or by airborne particles.

Many plaintiffs' attorneys will employ experts in economic loss to assess the financial loss suffered by victims. These experts will be able to determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their disease and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify on costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that an individual is unable to perform.

It is essential for defendants to challenge expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they've been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility with jurors.

Defendants in asbestos law & litigation cases can also apply for summary judgment when they prove that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't accept summary judgment simply because the defendant points to gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in years. To determine the facts upon which to base a case, it is necessary to look over an individual's job background. This often involves a thorough review of social security, union, Asbestos Litigation Defense tax and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are caused by a disease other than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have used this strategy to avoid liability and receive large amounts of money. As the defense bar grew, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is particularly true in the federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on the lack of evidence.

This is why an accurate assessment of every potential defendant is crucial to a successful asbestos litigation defense. This includes evaluating both the severity and length of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance, a worker who has mesothelioma is likely to receive higher damages than a person who only has 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 years of experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are regularly appointed by courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients in understanding the risks associated with this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs that will detect potential safety and liability issues. Contact us today to find out more about how our company can protect your company's interests.