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 knowledgeable in the many issues that arise in the defense of asbestos cases such as jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.
Research has shown that exposure to asbestos can lead to lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma as well as less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.
Statute of limitations
In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitations establishes a time limit for the length of time that follows an accident or injury the victim is able to bring a lawsuit. In the case of asbestos, the statute of limitations is different by state and is different from in other personal injury lawsuits due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.
Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death claims, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.
There are a variety of factors to consider when making an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the date at which the victim has to start a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit will result the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies by state, and the laws vary greatly, but most allow for between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.
In asbestos cases, defendants often use the statute of limitation as a defense to liability. They might argue for instance that the plaintiffs should have known or had knowledge of their asbestos exposure and had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma litigation, and it isn’t easy for the plaintiff to prove.
A defendant in a case involving asbestos could also argue that they didn’t have the resources or the means to warn people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument and largely depends on the evidence that is available. For example it has been successfully presented in California that the defendants did not have “state-of-the-art” expertise and therefore could not be expected to give adequate warnings.
In general, it is recommended to file the asbestos class action litigation lawsuit within the state where the victim’s residence. However, there are situations in which it might make sense to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. This usually has to do with the place of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos litigation paralegal.
Bare Metal
The bare metal defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn of the risks of asbestos-containing products that were added by other parties at a later date for example, thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions, but not all.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has changed the law. The Court did not accept the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead formulated the standard that requires the manufacturer to notify customers when they know that their integrated product is hazardous for its intended purpose and have no reason to believe that users will be aware of the risk.
This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However it’s not the end. First reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are made on the basis of negligence or strict liability, and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.
Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive interpretation of the bare metal defense. For example in the asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim worked as a carpenter and was exposed to turbines and switchgear at an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.
In a similar case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he will take the third approach to the defense of bare-metal. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court’s decision in DeVries will influence the way judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other situations, such as those involving tort claims under state law.
Defendants’ Experts
Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires lawyers with deep medical and legal knowledge and access to experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, developing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and bringing in experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants expert testimony at trials and depositions.
Most asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring that is due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties that are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a thorough description of the plaintiff’s employment background, including an investigation of their tax and social security documents, union and job information.
It may be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist the defendants argue that the asbestos Litigation Meaning exposure did not occur at the workplace, but brought into the home through the clothing of workers or air outside.
Many plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to determine the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts will be able to determine how much money a victim has lost due to illness and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify about expenses like medical bills and the price of hiring someone to perform household chores that one is unable to do anymore.
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 other asbestos-related claims. Experts may lose credibility with the jury when their testimony is repeated.
In asbestos cases, defendants may also request summary judgment in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence doesn’t show that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However, a judge will not grant summary judgment just because the defendant points to holes in the plaintiff’s proof.
Going to Trial
The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of the disease can be measured in decades. Thus, establishing the facts upon which to build a case requires a thorough review of a person’s entire employment history. This usually involves an exhaustive examination of social security and tax records, union and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.
Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to show that the plaintiff’s symptoms are due to another disease than mesothelioma can have significant importance in settlement negotiations.
In the past, some attorneys have used this strategy to avoid liability and asbestos litigation meaning receive large sums. As the defense bar grew and the courts have generally rejected this method. This has been particularly evident in federal courts, where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.
Because of this, an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is essential for a successful asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and extent of exposure as well as the degree of any diagnosed illness. 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 product manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, contractors, property owners, and employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have years of experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel. They are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.
Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients to understand the risks associated with this type of litigation. We collaborate with them to develop internal programs to identify potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how we can safeguard your company’s interests.