The 3 Largest Disasters In Asbestos Litigation Defense History
Asbestos Litigation Defense
Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to speak at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise in litigating asbestos cases.
Research has proved that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.
Statute of limitations
In most personal injury cases, a statute limits the time period after which a victim can make an action. In asbestos cases, statutes of limitations vary by state. They are also different from other personal injury lawsuits because asbestos-related diseases can take years to develop.
Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses the statute of limitations begins on the date of diagnosis, or death in the case of wrongful death rather than the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their families need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.
There are many aspects to take into consideration when making an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. This is the time limit that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failing to do so will cause the case to be closed. The statute of limitations varies by state, and the laws differ widely in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.
During an asbestos case, the defendants will often attempt to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For instance, they could argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure, and therefore had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits. It it can be difficult to prove for the victim.
Another potential defense in an asbestos case is that the defendants didn't have the resources or the means to warn of the dangers of the product. This is a complicated case and depends largely on the available evidence. In California for instance, it was successfully argument that defendants did not have "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected give adequate warnings.
In general, it is best to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim resides. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to make a claim in a state other than the victim's. Chino asbestos lawyers has to do with the location of the employer or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.
Bare Metal
The defense of bare metal is a typical strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that since their products left the plant in bare steel, they did not have a duty to inform about the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, like thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense has been accepted in some jurisdictions, but it is not a federally-approved option in all states.
The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead created the standard that requires a manufacturer to warn when they are aware that their product is unsafe for its intended use and have no reason to think that the end users will be aware of this risk.
Although this change in law could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the tale. First, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are founded on negligence or strict liability and are not brought under the federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.
Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a wider reading of the bare metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was a carpenter who had been exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing parts at a Texaco refining facility.
In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he will adopt a third view of the bare metal defense. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases such as this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations for example, those involving tort claims brought under state law.
Defendants' Experts
Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require skilled attorneys who have a thorough knowledge of both legal and medical issues as well as access to top experts. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in a variety of asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management plans as well as finding and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony during deposition and at trial.
In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans show the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as difficulty breathing that are similar to those of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, including an examination of the worker's union and tax records as well as social security documents.
A forensic engineer or environmental science expert may be required to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or by airborne particles.
Many plaintiffs' attorneys will employ experts in economic loss to calculate the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts will be able to 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 expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores a person is unable to do.
It is important for defendants to challenge the experts of the plaintiff, particularly when they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos-related claims. Experts can lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.
Defendants in asbestos cases can also seek summary judgment if they prove that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites holes in the plaintiff's proof.
Trial
Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make an accurate discovery. The lag between exposure and the development of disease can be measured in years. Therefore, determining the facts on which to make a case will require a thorough examination of a person's entire employment history. This usually involves an exhaustive examination of social security and tax records, union and financial records, as well as interviews with co-workers and family members.
Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are caused by a disease other than mesothelioma can have significant value in settlement negotiations.
In the past, certain attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and get large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has grown, this approach is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly evident in federal courts where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.
As a result, an accurate assessment of every potential defendant is essential for an effective asbestos defense. This includes evaluating both the severity and length of the illness and the extent of the exposure. For example, a carpenter who has mesothelioma will likely be awarded a higher amount of damages than one who has only had asbestosis.
The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related lawsuits for manufacturers distributors and suppliers contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have years of experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos dockets.
Asbestos litigation can be complex and costly. We help our clients understand the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we collaborate with them to create internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how we can protect your company's interests.