10 Of The Top Mobile Apps To Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to speak at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the many issues that arise in defending asbestos cases.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute limits the time frame within which a victim can make a claim. For asbestos, the statute of limitations varies by state and is different than in other personal injury lawsuits because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis (or death, in cases of wrongful death) instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why the families of victims must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are many factors that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the date that the victim has to make a claim by, and failing to file a lawsuit by the deadline could cause the case to be dismissed. The statute of limitations varies by 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 illness.

In asbestos cases defendants typically use the statute of limitation as a defense against liability. For instance, they could claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits, and it can be difficult for the victim to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also claim that they did not have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated case and depends largely on the evidence available. For instance, it has been successfully presented in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's residence. However, there are certain circumstances in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. This 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 common strategy employed by equipment manufacturers in asbestos lawsuit litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn of the risks of asbestos-containing substances added by other parties at a later time like thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is a common one in certain jurisdictions, but not everywhere.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has changed the law. The Court did not accept the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead, a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its product is likely to be harmful for its intended use and does not have any reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

Although this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the tale. For one reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are based 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 understanding of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia for instance the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he will take a different approach to the bare metal defense. 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, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare-metal defenses can be applied to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges use the bare metal defense in other contexts like those that involve tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require skilled attorneys who have a thorough understanding of medical and legal issues and access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in a variety of asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation in identifying and retaining experts, and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

Typically asbestos cases require testimony of medical professionals such as a radiologist and pathologist who testify on X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to those of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide an in-depth description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an analysis of their tax and social security, union and job records.

An forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be necessary to explain the cause of the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defendants to argue that asbestos exposure did not occur at the workplace, but brought into the home through the clothing of workers or air outside.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to assess the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to illness and the effect it has had on their life. They can also testify about expenses such as the cost of medical bills as well as the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that one is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge experts of the plaintiff, particularly when they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of other asbestos lawyers-related claims. Experts may lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.

Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also apply for summary judgment if they demonstrate that the evidence doesn't establish that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge is not likely to issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant identifies gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of the disease could be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to build a claim it is important to look over an individual's job history. This typically involves a thorough review of social security and tax records, union, and financial records as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are due to another disease than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and get large amounts of money. However, as the defense bar has grown and diversified, this strategy has been largely rejected by the courts. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

As a result, an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos defense. 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 will likely be awarded higher damages than a person who has only had asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be complex and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the potential risks associated with this type of litigation. We work with them to formulate internal programs to detect potential safety and liability issues. Contact us to find out how we can protect the interests of your company.