The Ultimate Cheat Sheet On Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to present at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise in litigating asbestos cases.

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

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases, a statute of limitations defines a time frame for the length of time that follows an accident or injury, the victim is able to start an action. For asbestos, the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury lawsuits because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death in cases of wrongful death) instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.

There are a variety of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. This is the deadline which the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failure to do so will cause the case to be dismissed. The statute of limitation differs from state to state and laws differ greatly. However, most states allow between one and six year after the date of diagnosis.

In an asbestos case defendants typically use the statute of limitation as a defense against liability. They might argue, for example, that plaintiffs should have been aware or had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos and that they had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits. It can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another possible defense in an asbestos case is that the defendants didn't have the resources or means to inform the public about the dangers associated with the product. This is a complicated case that relies heavily on the available evidence. In California, for example, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and were not able to provide adequate warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. However, there are certain situations in which it might be beneficial to file the lawsuit in a different state. It usually has to do with the location of the employer or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as bare metal, they had no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties at a later time, such as thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is accepted in certain jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped the law. The Court has ruled against 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 integrated product will be dangerous for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that its end customers will be aware of the risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims based on strict liability or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. For instance in the asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines at an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing parts.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will adopt a third view of the bare-metal defense. The plaintiff in that 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 bare metal defenses apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations.

El Cajon asbestos lawyer  is a complex affair and requires lawyers with vast knowledge of both law and medicine, as well as accessing experts 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 strategies, finding and retaining experts, and defending 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 show scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could also testify on symptoms, such as breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can provide an in-depth report of the plaintiff's job background, including an analysis of their tax social security documents, union and job information.

It is possible to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist to determine the source of exposure to asbestos. Experts from these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but brought home by workers' clothing or the outside air.

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to calculate the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to their illness and the effect it has had on their life. They can also testify to expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that a person is unable to do.

It is essential that defendants challenge plaintiffs' expert witnesses, particularly in the event that they have testified on hundreds or dozens of asbestos claims. These experts can lose credibility with the jury if 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 was injured caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge will not give summary judgment just because a defendant points out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.

Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that getting an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The lag between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in years. To determine the facts on which to build a claim it is essential to examine an individual's employment history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial records, as well as interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos sufferers are often diagnosed with less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Due to this the ability of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms might be caused by a different disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers employed this strategy to deny responsibility and get large sums. As the defense bar evolved and the courts have generally rejected this method. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes evaluating both the severity and length of the disease and the extent of the exposure. For example, a carpenter who has mesothelioma may be awarded higher damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation on behalf of manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have years of 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 litigation can be complex and expensive. We help our clients to understand the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we work with them to develop internal programs that are proactive and detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how our company can safeguard your company's interests.