20 Trailblazers Lead The Way In Asbestos Litigation Defense
Asbestos Litigation Defense
Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm regularly participate in national conferences and are well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise in defending asbestos cases, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.
Research has shown that exposure to asbestos can lead to lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.
Statute of limitations
In most personal injury cases statutes limit the time limit within the date a victim is able to make an action. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different than other personal injury cases due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.
Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death, in cases of wrongful death) instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason that victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.
When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be considered. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. This is the date that the victim must make a claim by, and failing to do so could cause the case to be barred. The statute of limitations differs by state, and the laws differ greatly, but most allow for between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.
In asbestos cases, the defendants will often attempt to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. They could argue for instance that plaintiffs should have been aware or knew about their asbestos exposure and had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma lawsuits and it can be difficult for the victim to prove.
A defendant in an asbestos case may also claim that they didn't have the resources or means to inform people about the dangers of the product. This is a difficult case and depends largely on the evidence available. For instance, it has been successfully argued in California that the defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" expertise and therefore could not be expected to give adequate warnings.
In general, it's better to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. However, there are certain circumstances where it may be beneficial to file the lawsuit in an alternative state. Arlington asbestos lawyers 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 standard strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that because their products left the factory as untreated steel, they did not have a duty to inform about the dangers posed by asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, like thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is recognized in some jurisdictions, but not everywhere.
The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead, an entirely new standard that states that manufacturers are required to warn if it knows that its product will be dangerous for its intended purposes and has no reason to believe that its final customers will be aware of the risk.
This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However this isn't the end of the road. First it is that the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are based on negligence or strict liability, and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.
Plaintiffs will continue pursuing an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded 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 will take the third approach to 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 third-party contractors, including the Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations.
Defendants' Experts
Asbestos litigation is complex and require skilled lawyers with a deep understanding of medical and legal issues and access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, including investigating claims, creating strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, identifying and bringing in experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.
Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical lung tissue scarring that is caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify on symptoms, such as difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a thorough account of the plaintiff's work background, including an examination of his or her tax, social security, union and job records.
A forensic engineer or environmental science expert could be necessary to explain the cause of the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed in the workplace and was instead brought home through clothing worn by workers or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).
A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to establish the monetary loss suffered by the victims. They can determine how much money a victim has lost due to disease and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify on costs like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores that an individual is unable to perform.
It is essential that defendants challenge plaintiffs experts, particularly in the event that they have testified on dozens or hundreds of asbestos claims. Experts can lose credibility before jurors if their testimony is repeated.
In asbestos cases, defendants may also request summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff was injured by exposure to the defendant's products. However the judge will not grant summary judgment just because the defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.
Going to Trial
Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured by decades. As such, establishing the facts on which to create a case, requires a review 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 victims often develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis prior to 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 value in settlement negotiations.
In the past, certain attorneys have employed this method to deny responsibility and obtain large amounts of money. However, as the defense bar has evolved the strategy has been largely rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges often dismiss such claims due to the absence of evidence.
As a result, an in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as and the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For example carpenters with mesothelioma will likely be awarded a higher amount of damages than a person who has only had asbestosis.
The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers contractors, distributors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have extensive experience as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are regularly appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to manage the prosecution of asbestos dockets.
Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We help our clients recognize the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we assist them to create internal programs that are proactive and detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out how we can safeguard your business's interests.