The 3 Biggest Disasters In Asbestos Litigation Defense The Asbestos Litigation Defense's 3 Biggest Disasters In History

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to speak at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos cases.

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

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury claims statutes limit the time frame within which a victim may make a claim. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations varies by state and is different than other personal injury cases 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 limitation begins at the time of diagnosis (or death, in cases of wrongful death) rather than at the time of exposure. This discovery rule is why the families of victims must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of factors that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline could cause the case to be closed. The statute of limitations varies in each state, and 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 in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they might argue that the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have known about their exposure, and therefore had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma cases and can be difficult for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case could also claim that they didn't have the resources or the means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a difficult case that relies heavily on the evidence available. In California, for example, it was successfully argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected to provide sufficient warnings.

In general, it's best to file an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. However, there are situations in which it might be beneficial to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. This usually has something to be related to the location of the employer or where the person was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a common strategy employed by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as bare metal, they had no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing products that were added by other parties later, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court has rejected manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead created an obligation for manufacturers to inform consumers when they know that their integrated product is hazardous for its intended purpose and have no reason to believe that the end users will be aware of this risk.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However, this is not the end of the road. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state law claims that are based on strict liability or negligence, and therefore not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a wider interpretation of the bare metal defense. For example in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether that state recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who had been exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos-containing equipment at the Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third perspective of the defense of bare-metal. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma while working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare metal defenses apply to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges apply the bare-metal defense in other cases.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires lawyers with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing experts of the highest caliber. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in a variety of asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management plans in hiring and retaining experts and defending plaintiffs' and defendants' expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans reveal the typical lung tissue scarring that is caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could be able to testify about symptoms, such as breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide a detailed description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an investigation of their tax, social security documents, union and job information.

It may be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure did not occur at the workplace, but brought into the home through the clothing of workers or the outside air.

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs employ economic loss experts to calculate the financial losses suffered by the victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the effect it affected their life. They can also testify to expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that an individual is no longer able to do.

Overland Park asbestos attorneys  is essential that plaintiffs challenge defendants experts, particularly if they have testified on hundreds or dozens of asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts could lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants may also seek summary judgment if they can show that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the defendant's products. However a judge won't give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining an accurate diagnosis can be nearly 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 will require a thorough examination of a person's entire employment history. This typically involves a thorough analysis of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records, as along with interviews with coworkers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Due to this the capacity of a defendant to demonstrate that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to another disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have used this strategy to avoid liability and receive large sums. As the defense bar grew and the courts have generally rejected this strategy. This is especially evident in federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on lack of evidence.

This is why a careful evaluation of each potential defendant is crucial to a successful asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and the nature of the exposure, as and the severity of any diagnosed disease. For example, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer greater damage than someone who has asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients in understanding the risks associated with this type of litigation and work with them to formulate internal programs designed to proactively detect potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how we can safeguard your company's interests.