15 Best Asbestos Litigation Defense Bloggers You Should Follow

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise when litigating asbestos cases.

Research has shown that asbestos exposure can cause lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as 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 injury or accident, the victim is allowed to start an action. In asbestos lawyers cases, the statute of limitations differs according to the state. They also differ from other personal injury claims because asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to develop.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related illnesses the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis, or death in the case of wrongful death rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer (for beginners).

There are a variety of aspects to take into consideration when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is among the most important. This is the deadline which the victim must submit the lawsuit by, and failure to do so will result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit differs from state to state and laws differ greatly. However, most allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos lawsuits cases, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For instance, they might argue that the plaintiffs were aware or should have been aware of their exposure and thus had a duty to notify their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases and isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another potential defense in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the means or resources to inform the public about the dangers associated with the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence available. For instance it was successfully presented in California that defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim lives. In certain situations, it may make sense to make a claim in a different state from the victim's. This usually has to do with the location of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a common strategy employed by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It asserts that because their products left the factory as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances added by other parties at a later date for example, thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense has been embraced in certain areas, but it is not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead established an obligation for a manufacturer to warn when they are aware that their product is unsafe for its intended use and have no reason to think that the end users will be aware of the danger.

Although this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. First, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims 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 wider understanding of the bare-metal defense. For instance, in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in the case was a carpenter, and was exposed to switchgear and turbines in the Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he will 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 following working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by contractors of third party, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare-metal defenses can be applied to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other cases like those that involve tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with deep medical and legal knowledge and access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have decades of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation, finding and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs' expert testimony during depositions and in court.

Most asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring that is 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 diseases. Experts can provide a thorough account of the plaintiff's work history, including an investigation of their tax and social security documents, union and job information.

A forensic engineer or environmental scientist may be required to explain the cause of the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought home by workers' clothing or the outside air.

Many plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to determine the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and its impact on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify on costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores a person is unable to complete.

It is essential for defendants to challenge plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially in cases where they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts could lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment if they can show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant cites holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that obtaining an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured in years. As such, establishing the facts on which to create a case, requires a thorough review of the entire work history. This usually involves an exhaustive examination of social security and tax records, union, and financial records, as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, a defendant's ability to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are caused by an illness other than mesothelioma may have a significant value in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and obtain large amounts of money. As the defense bar grew and the courts have generally rejected this strategy. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges often dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is therefore essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the length and nature of the exposure as in addition to the degree of any diagnosed illness. For instance, a worker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to receive higher damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, contractors, property owners, and employers in asbestos-related litigation. Our lawyers have years of experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel. They are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos attorneys dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we assist them to develop internal programs that are proactive and identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us to learn how we can safeguard the interests of your business.