Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys regularly participate in national conferences and are proficient in the myriad of issues that arise when asbestos litigation that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

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

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases there is a statute that limits the time period after the date a victim is able to make a claim. For asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from other personal injury cases due to the fact that asbestos-related illnesses can take decades to manifest.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in the case of wrongful deaths) rather than at the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason the victims and their families should consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.

There are a myriad of factors to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the date at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. In the event of a delay, it will result in the lawsuit being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit differs from state to state and the laws differ greatly. However, Asbestos Litigation Defense most states allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

In asbestos cases, the defendants will often attempt to invoke the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs were aware or should have known about their exposure and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is an often used argument in mesothelioma litigation and it can be difficult for the victim to prove.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the means or resources to inform the public about the dangers posed by the product. This is a complex case and relies on the available evidence. For instance, it was successfully argued in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's home. In some cases, it may make sense to bring a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. This is usually to be related to where the employer is located or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that, because their products left the factory as untreated steel, they didn't have a duty to inform about the dangers of asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating and flange seals. This defense has been accepted in some jurisdictions, but it is not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has changed the law. The Court rejected the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead established a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its product will be dangerous for the purpose it was designed for and has no reason to believe that its final users will realize that risk.

Although this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to win claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader understanding of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia, for example the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines at the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to take the third approach to the defense of bare metal. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He 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 DeVries decision will influence how judges use the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require skilled lawyers who have a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues and access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management plans as well as identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and during trial.

Typically, asbestos Defense litigation asbestos law and litigation cases will require the testimony from medical professionals such as 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 can also testify about symptoms such as difficulty breathing that are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide an in-depth description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an examination of his or her tax, social security and union records as well as job and Asbestos Litigation Defense employment details.

A forensic engineering or environmental science expert could be necessary to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. These experts can help plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was brought home on the clothing of workers or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to determine the financial losses incurred by the victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to their illness and the effect it had on his or her life. They can also testify to costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that an individual is unable to complete.

It is essential that defendants challenge plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts could lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment when they show that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff was injured from exposure to the defendant's product. A judge is not likely to grant summary judgement just because a defendant identifies gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in years. Thus, establishing the facts upon which to make a case requires a review of an individual's entire work history. This requires a thorough examination of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial documents, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, a defendant's ability to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms stem from another disease than mesothelioma could be of significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and obtain large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have generally resisted this strategy. This what is asbestos litigation especially true in federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is therefore essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure as in addition to the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance a carpenter with mesothelioma may be awarded higher damages than someone who has only had asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos litigation meaning-related litigation on behalf of manufacturers distributors and suppliers contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have extensive experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

asbestos exposure litigation litigation can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients to understand the risks associated with this type of litigation. We collaborate with them to develop internal programs to identify potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us to find out how we can help protect the interests of your company.