Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers regularly participate in national conferences and are knowledgeable in the myriad issues that arise in defending asbestos cases that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitations defines a time frame for how long after an injury or accident, the victim is allowed to start a lawsuit. In asbestos cases, the statutes of limitations differ by state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits as asbestos-related illnesses can take a long time to be apparent.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins at the time of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death cases instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer (please click the next website page).

There are a myriad of factors to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. The statute of limitations is the date that the victim has to make a claim. In the event of a delay, it will result the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies according to state, and the laws vary greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos attorneys-related disease.

In an asbestos case defendants frequently use the statute of limitation as a defense to liability. They could argue that, for instance, the plaintiffs should have known or knew about their exposure to asbestos and were under a duty of notification to their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma cases, and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the means or resources to inform the public about the dangers posed by the product. This is a complex case and depends largely on the evidence available. For instance, it has been successfully argued in California that defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. In certain circumstances, it may make sense to bring a lawsuit in a different state from the victim's. It usually has to do with the place of the employer or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos attorney litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that because their products left the factory as bare steel, they did not have a duty to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, for instance thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense is accepted in a few jurisdictions, but it is not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court did not accept the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead created a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to inform consumers if they know that its integrated product will be harmful for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that its final customers will be aware of the risk.

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

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

In a similar case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has stated that he would adopt the third view of the defense of bare metal. 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 that case ruled that the bare metal defense applies 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 situations, such as those involving tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge and access to experts of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in a variety of asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management plans as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defense of defendants and plaintiffs' expert testimony during depositions and in court.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may be able to testify about symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a thorough report of the plaintiff's job background, which includes an examination of his or her tax, social security documents, union and job information.

It is possible to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. Experts from these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or by airborne particles.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will call experts in economic loss to assess the financial loss suffered by the victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money a victim has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on their daily life. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores a person cannot do.

It is crucial that defendants challenge plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially when they have testified to dozens or hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts could lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also apply for summary judgment when they show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff was injured due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't grant summary judgment just because the defendant points to gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that getting meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured by decades. Therefore, determining the facts that will create a case, requires a review of the entire work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security, union and financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and colleagues.

asbestos attorneys-related victims are often diagnosed with less serious diseases such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the capacity 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, certain lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and obtain large awards. However as the defense bar has grown and diversified, this strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges regularly reject such claims due to the absence of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is therefore essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the length and the nature of the exposure as well as the severity of any diagnosed disease. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma may be awarded more damages than one who has only had asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, contractors and property owners as well as employers in asbestos-related litigation. Our attorneys have served as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts to handle asbestos dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complicated and expensive. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we assist them to create internal programs that can detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out how we can protect the interests of your business.