You Will Meet With The Steve Jobs Of The Asbestos Litigation Defense Industry

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the numerous issues that arise in litigating asbestos cases.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos can cause lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitation defines a time frame for the time after an accident or injury the victim can bring an action. For asbestos, the statute of limitations differs by state and is different than in other personal injury claims because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take years to show up.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock begins at the date 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 must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be taken into account. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. This is the time limit that the victim has to submit the lawsuit by, and failing to file the lawsuit could result in the case being dismissed. The time limit for filing a lawsuit differs from state to state and laws vary greatly. However, most allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

During an asbestos case when the defendants often attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. They may say, for example, that plaintiffs should have been aware or had knowledge of their asbestos exposure and had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits. It is difficult to prove for the victim.

Another defense that could be used in an asbestos case is that the defendants didn't have the resources or means to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complex case and relies on the available evidence. In California, for example it was argument that defendants did not have "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim lives. However, exposure there are some circumstances in which it might make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. This is usually connected with the location of the employer, or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as unfinished metal, they had no duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing products added by other parties at a later date for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in a few states, but it's not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court did not accept the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead created a standard that requires manufacturers to inform consumers if they know that their integrated product is unsafe for its intended purpose and have no reason to think that users will be aware of this danger.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However this isn't the end of the story. First, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims made on the basis of negligence or strict liability, and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare metal. In the Asbestos Multi District Litigation in Philadelphia for instance, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in this case was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing equipment at a Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will adopt a third view of the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma following working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by contractors of third party, 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 have an impact on how judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other situations like those that involve tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge and access to top experts. EWH attorneys EWH have years of experience helping clients in a variety of asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management plans as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and cancer during trial.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals such as pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that reveal the lung tissue being damaged that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as difficulty breathing and coughing, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide an in-depth report of the plaintiff's job background, exposure which includes an examination of his or her tax and social security documents, union and job information.

A forensic engineer or environmental science expert could be necessary to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and instead was ingested through clothing worn by workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to assess the financial loss suffered by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a victim lost as a result of their illness and its impact on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify about expenses like the cost of medical bills and the price of hiring someone to do household chores that a person is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial that defendants challenge the plaintiffs experts, particularly in the event that they have testified on hundreds or dozens of asbestos claims. Experts can lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgement if they can show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. A judge won't issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant identifies 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 meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of 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 involves a thorough review of the individual's tax, social security and union financial records, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to another disease than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers employed this strategy to avoid responsibility and receive large awards. As the defense bar evolved, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges often dismiss claims based on the absence of evidence.

A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is crucial to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes evaluating both the severity and length of the illness as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance a carpenter with mesothelioma may be awarded a higher amount of damages than one who has only suffered from asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice asbestos exposure litigation Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation on behalf of manufacturers, suppliers and distributors contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have been 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 assist our clients in understanding the potential risks associated with this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs designed to proactively identify potential liability and safety concerns. Contact us today to find out how we can safeguard your business's interests.