10 Quick Tips On Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

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

Research has shown that asbestos exposure can cause lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma, and less serious diseases like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitation sets a deadline for the time after an accident or injury the victim can start an action. In asbestos cases, the statutes of limitations vary by state. They are also different from other personal injury claims as asbestos-related illnesses can take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families 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 taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the deadline at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so will result in the case being thrown out. The statute of limitations varies from state to state, and the laws differ greatly. However, the majority allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

In asbestos exposure litigation cases defendants frequently employ the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. For instance, they might claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure and thus had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma cases and it isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another defense that could be used in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants did not have the resources or the means to warn people of the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument that is largely based on the evidence available. For example, it has been successfully presented in California that defendants didn't have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state of the victim's residence. In certain circumstances it might be beneficial to bring a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. This is usually to relate to where the employer is located or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a common strategy employed by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as unfinished metal, they had no duty to warn of the risks of asbestos-containing substances added by other parties at a later time like thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions but not in all.

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 created the new standard under which manufacturers are required to warn consumers if it is aware that its product is likely to be dangerous for Asbestos Litigation Defense its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that its end users will be aware of that risk.

This change in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However this isn't the end. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims based on strict liability or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader reading of the bare metal defense. For example, in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing parts at an Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he is likely to take a different approach to the bare metal defense. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by contractors of third party including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare metal defenses apply 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 litigation is a complex affair and requires lawyers with a vast knowledge of both law and medicine and access to experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, creating litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and bringing in experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

Most asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to testify about symptoms such as difficulty breathing and coughing, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide an in-depth account of the plaintiff's work history, including an investigation of their tax and social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

An forensic engineering or environmental science expert could be necessary to explain the cause of the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defense attorneys argue that the latest asbestos litigation exposure did not occur at the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or air outside.

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers hire economic loss experts to calculate the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a victim lost as a result of their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify on expenses such as the cost of medical bills and the price of hiring a person to take care of household chores that a person is unable to do anymore.

It is important that defendants challenge the plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially when they have testified to dozens or hundreds of other asbestos claims. Experts can lose credibility with the jury when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos class action litigation cases, defendants may also seek summary judgment in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence does NOT establish that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However a judge won't accept summary judgment simply because the defendant points to weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. The lag between exposure and the development of disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to build a case, it is necessary to review an individual's work background. This often involves a thorough review of social security, union, tax, and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Due to this the ability of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

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

A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is crucial to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the severity and duration of the illness and the extent of the exposure. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded higher damages than one who has only suffered from 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 extensive experience in the role of National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, Asbestos Litigation Defense and are regularly appointed by courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

asbestos litigation meaning litigation can be complex and costly. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation and we work with them to create internal programs that are proactive and detect liability and safety issues. Contact us to learn how we can safeguard your business's interests.