This Is The Ultimate Cheat Sheet For Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm regularly speak at national conferences and are well-versed in the many issues that arise when defending asbestos attorneys cases that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

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

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases the statute of limitations defines a time frame for the length of time that follows an injury or accident, the victim can start an action. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations vary by state. They are also different 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 as well as other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death cases, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer (https://pappas-lauritzen-3.blogbright.net/10-things-everyone-hates-about-asbestos-lawsuit-History-asbestos-lawsuit-history).

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 that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline could cause the case to be dismissed. The statute of limitation differs from state to state and laws differ greatly. However, the majority allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos-related case, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have known about their exposure and thus had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases and isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another defense that could be used in a asbestos attorneys case is that the defendants did not have the resources or the means to warn people of the dangers associated with the product. This is a difficult case that relies heavily on the evidence available. For instance, it has been successfully presented in California that defendants didn't have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to file an asbestos lawyer lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. However, there are some situations in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. It usually has to do 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 use in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that because their products left the factory in bare steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, such as thermal insulating and flange seals. This defense has been embraced in certain states, but it's not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead created a standard that requires manufacturers to inform consumers when they are aware that their product is unsafe for its intended purpose. They have no reason to believe that the end users will realize this danger.

This change in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a wider understanding 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 if that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was carpenter who was exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos-containing components at a Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has signaled that he is likely to take a different approach to the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges apply the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with a deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing top experts. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony during deposition and during trial.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals, such as a radiologist and pathologist who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of the lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to provide evidence of symptoms, such as difficulty breathing and coughing, which are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, including an examination of the worker's union, tax, and social security records.

A forensic engineer or environmental scientist may be necessary to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defense attorneys argue that the asbestos attorneys exposure was not at the workplace, but brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or by airborne particles.

Many plaintiffs lawyers will call experts in economic loss to assess the financial loss suffered by the victims. These experts will be able to determine how much money a victim has lost due to disease and the impact it affected their life. They can also testify about costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person is unable to perform.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the experts of the plaintiff, particularly in cases where they've given evidence 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 seek summary judgement if they can show that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However a judge won't grant summary judgment just because the defendant points to weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that obtaining significant information can be almost impossible. The lag between exposure and the development of the disease could be measured in years. Thus, establishing the facts on which to build a case requires a review of the entire work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security and union financial records, as well as interviews with family members and coworkers.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are due to another disease than mesothelioma may have a significant value in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys employed this strategy to avoid responsibility and receive large amounts of money. However, as the defense bar has developed and diversified, this strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in the federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on the lack of evidence.

As a result, an in-depth analysis of every potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as well as the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer more damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complex and expensive. We help our clients to recognize the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that are proactive and identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how our company can protect your company's interests.