10 Apps To Help You Manage Your Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm regularly participate in national conferences and are well-versed in the many issues that arise when asbestos litigation, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proven that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

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 file an action. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations differ according to the state. They also differ from other personal injury lawsuits since asbestos-related illnesses may take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses the statute of limitations clock starts on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their family members must consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are many aspects that must be taken into account. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the deadline by which the victim must make a claim. Failure to file a lawsuit will result the case being barred. The statute of limitations varies according to state, and the laws differ 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 frequently make use of the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. For instance, they might argue that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known about their exposure, and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases and can be difficult for the victim to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also claim that they didn't have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that is largely based on the evidence that is available. For instance, it was successfully argued in California that the defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state of the victim's home. However, there are circumstances in which it might make sense to file the lawsuit in a different state. It usually has to do with the location of the employer, or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare-metal defense is a strategy that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products left the factory as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties at a later time, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense has been accepted in some areas, but it is not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead established a standard that requires the manufacturer to notify customers when they are aware that their integrated product is hazardous for its intended purpose. They have no reason to believe that users will be aware of this danger.

While this change in law could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. First reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims founded on negligence or strict liability and are not brought under the federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

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

In a similar case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has indicated that he will take the third approach to the defense of bare metal. In that 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, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that bare metal defenses apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges use the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, creating strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, as well as identifying and hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants in expert testimony at trials and depositions.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals such as pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could also testify on symptoms, such as breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a detailed report of the plaintiff's job history, including an analysis of their tax social security, union and job records.

A forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be necessary to explain the cause of the asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or the outside air.

Many plaintiffs' attorneys will employ economic loss experts to determine the monetary losses incurred by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person has lost due to illness and the effect it affected their life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores a person is no longer able to complete.

It is crucial that defendants challenge plaintiffs' expert witnesses, particularly when they have testified to hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility with jurors.

In  Vancouver asbestos attorney , defendants can also request summary judgment if they can demonstrate that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff was injured caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge will not grant summary judgement just because a defendant has pointed out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases means that significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts upon which to base a claim it is important to review an individual's work background. This often involves a thorough examination of social security, union, tax and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are caused by an illness other than mesothelioma can have significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have employed this strategy to avoid liability and receive large awards. However, as the defense bar has grown the strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This has been particularly true in the federal courts, where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on lack of evidence.

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

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

Asbestos cases can be complex and expensive. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we work with them to develop internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us to learn how we can help protect the interests of your company.