The Most Underrated Companies To In The Asbestos Litigation Defense Industry
Asbestos Litigation Defense
Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the numerous issues that arise in litigating asbestos cases.
Research has shown that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, well as lesser diseases like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.
Statute of limitations
In most personal injury cases the statute of limitations defines a time frame for the time after an accident or injury, the victim can file a lawsuit. In asbestos cases, the statutes of limitations differ by state. They also differ from other personal injury lawsuits since asbestos-related illnesses may take years to develop.
Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death, in the case of wrongful deaths) rather than at the time of exposure. This discovery rule is why the victims and their families need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.
There are a myriad of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the time limit that the victim has to make a claim. Failure to do so could result in the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitation varies from state to state, and the laws vary greatly. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.
During an asbestos case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They could argue that, for instance, the plaintiffs should have known or had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos and that they had a duty of notification to their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits, and can be difficult to prove for the victim.
Another potential defense in an asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the means or resources to warn people of the dangers posed by the product. This is a complex argument that relies on the evidence that is available. In California, for example it was argument that defendants did not have "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not provide adequate warnings.
In general, it is best to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. In certain circumstances, it may make sense to make a claim in a different state from the victim's. This usually has to do with the place of the employer, or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.
Bare Metal
The defense of bare metal is a typical strategy used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as bare metal, they had no obligation to warn of the risks of asbestos-containing products added by other parties at a later date like thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in a few states, but it's not a federally-approved option in all states.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered that. The Court rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead created a standard that requires the manufacturer to notify customers when they know that their product is dangerous for its intended purpose and there is no reason to believe that users will be aware of the danger.
This modification in law will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However this isn't the end. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.
Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader interpretation of the bare metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia for instance, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in the case was a carpenter, and was exposed to turbines and switchgear at an 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 that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma while working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by third-party contractors which included the Equipment Defendants. who asbestos litigation deal in that case ruled that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will affect the way judges apply the bare-metal defense in other contexts.
Defendants' Experts
Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with extensive knowledge of law and medicine and access to experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys EWH have years of experience helping clients in various asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management plans in hiring and retaining experts and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony in deposition and at trial.
Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical lung tissue scarring caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may be able to testify about symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of employment, union and tax records as well as social security records.
It could be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. Experts from these fields can assist the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or air outside.
Many of the plaintiffs' lawyers will bring in economic loss experts to assess the financial losses suffered by the victims. They can estimate the amount of money that a victim lost as a result of their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person is unable to perform.
It is important for defendants to challenge experts of the plaintiff, particularly in cases where they have testified in dozens or even hundreds of asbestos-related cases. Experts can lose credibility with jurors if their testimony is repeated.
Plaintiffs in asbestos cases may also apply for summary judgment if they demonstrate that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. A judge will not grant summary judgement just because a defendant points out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof.
Going to Trial
Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. The time between exposure and the development of the disease can be measured in decades. To establish the facts on which to build a case, it is necessary to review an individual's work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security, union and financial documents, as well as interviews with family members and co-workers.
Asbestos sufferers are often diagnosed with less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Due to this the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff's symptoms could be caused by a different disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.
In the past, a few attorneys have used this strategy to deny liability and get large awards. As the defense bar grew, courts have largely rejected this method. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges often dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.
A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is crucial to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating both the severity and length of the illness and the extent of the exposure. For instance a carpenter with mesothelioma will likely be awarded higher damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.
The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers contractors, distributors and property owners as well as employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have extensive experience in the role of National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are regularly appointed by courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.
Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients to recognize the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we assist them to develop internal programs that can detect liability and safety issues. Contact us to find out how we can protect the interests of your company.