Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise in trying to defend asbestos cases.

Research has proved that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation establishes a time limit for how long after an accident or injury, 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 because asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitation begins at the time of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death claims rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason the victims and their families should consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.

There are a myriad of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the time limit at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so could result in the case being thrown out. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies by state, and the laws vary greatly, but most allow for between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In asbestos cases when the defendants often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They could argue for instance that plaintiffs should have been aware or were aware of their asbestos exposure and had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos litigation online case may also claim that they did not have the resources or the means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence available. For instance it has been successfully argued in California that defendants didn't possess "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. In some cases it might be beneficial to bring a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. This usually has to do with the place of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos litigation paralegal.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that since their products left the factory as untreated steel, they didn't have a duty to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is a common one in certain jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision specializes in asbestos litigation Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court rejected the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its product is likely to be harmful for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that the end users will realize that risk.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However it's not the end of the story. For one it is that the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are founded on 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 pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine if that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines at an Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he'll take a different approach to the defense of bare metal. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He had worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case ruled that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges use the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require experienced lawyers with a thorough understanding of medical and legal issues as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. Attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management plans, finding and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify on symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide an in-depth report of the plaintiff's job background, which includes an investigation of their tax and social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist to determine the source of exposure to asbestos. These experts can aid defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but brought into the home through the clothing of workers or by airborne particles.

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers employ economic loss experts to determine the monetary loss suffered by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money that a victim lost as a result of their illness and the impact it had on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that a person is no longer able to do.

It is important that defendants challenge plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on dozens or hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility with jurors.

Defendants in latest asbestos litigation (Suggested Internet site) cases can also seek summary judgment if they can show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant has pointed out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that getting an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and latest Asbestos litigation the onset of disease can be measured in decades. As such, establishing the facts that will make a case requires a review of a person's entire employment history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and coworkers.

Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with 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 a disease other than mesothelioma could be of significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and obtain large awards. However, as the defense bar has grown, this approach has been largely rejected by the courts. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges regularly reject such claims due to the absence of evidence.

This is why an in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the length and the nature of the exposure as and the degree of any diagnosed illness. For example, a woodworker who has mesothelioma will likely to suffer more damages than someone 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 attorneys have been National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts to manage asbestos litigation cases dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this type of litigation and we work with them to develop internal programs that will proactively identify liability and safety concerns. Contact us to learn how we can safeguard your business's interests.