Asbestos Litigation Defense
Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the numerous issues that arise when defending asbestos cases.
Research has shown that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma as and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.
Statute of Limitations
In the majority of personal injury cases the statute of limitations defines a time frame for the length of time that follows an accident or injury the victim is able to bring an action. For asbestos, the statute of limitations differs by state and is different from in other personal injury claims due to the fact that asbestos-related illnesses can take decades to manifest.
Due to the delayed nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death in cases of wrongful death) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their family members must consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.
When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are many aspects that must be taken into account. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. This is the time limit that the victim has to file the lawsuit by, and failure to file the lawsuit could cause the case to be dismissed. The statute of limitations differs by state, and the laws vary greatly 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 Amarillo asbestos lawyers , the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have known about their exposure and thus had a legal obligation to inform their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma lawsuits and can be difficult for the victim to prove.
Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants did not have the means or resources to warn people of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complex case and relies on the available evidence. For instance, it has been successfully made in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.
Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state of the victim's residence. In certain circumstances it might be beneficial to file a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. This is usually to relate to the location of the employer or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.
Bare Metal
The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products were manufactured as unfinished metal, they had no obligation to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials that were added by other parties later like thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in a few jurisdictions, but it is not available under federal law in all states.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead established an obligation for manufacturers to inform consumers when they know that their integrated product is unsafe for its intended purpose. They there is no reason to believe that the end users will be aware of the risk.
This change in law will make it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However this isn't the end of the story. First reason, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims 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 to pursue a broader interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. For example in the Asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state of Illinois recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case worked as a carpenter and was exposed to switchgear and turbines at a Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.
In the same case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he will 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 as having 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 apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges use the bare metal defense in other cases, such as those involving tort claims brought under state law.
Defendants' Experts
Asbestos litigation is complex and require skilled lawyers with a thorough understanding of medical and legal issues as well as access to top experts. EWH attorneys have years of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, creating strategies for managing litigation, including budgets, as well as identifying and hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants expert testimony at trials and depositions.
In most cases, asbestos cases 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 due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could be able to testify about symptoms, like difficulty in breathing, that are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, which includes a review of job, union tax, social security documents.
A forensic engineer or environmental science expert could be required to clarify the reason for the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defendants to argue that asbestos exposure did not occur at the workplace, but was brought home by workers' clothing or by airborne particles.
Many 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 an individual cannot do.
It is essential that defendants challenge the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, particularly if they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of asbestos claims. These experts can lose credibility with jurors if their testimony is repeated.
Defendants in asbestos cases can also apply for summary judgment if they can prove that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff suffered any injuries due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't grant summary judgment just because the defendant has pointed out holes in the plaintiff's proof.
Trial
The latency issues involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining an accurate diagnosis can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and disease can be measured by decades. To establish the facts on which to build a claim, it is necessary to examine an individual's employment history. This requires a thorough examination 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 more likely to develop less serious diseases such as asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this the ability of a defendant to show that the plaintiff's symptoms could be due to a different illness that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.
In the past, certain attorneys have used this strategy to avoid liability and receive large awards. As the defense bar has evolved, courts have largely rejected this approach. This is particularly true in federal courts, where judges regularly reject such claims due to lack of evidence.
As a result, an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is essential to a successful asbestos defense. This includes assessing the severity and length of the disease and the extent of the exposure. For example, a carpenter who has mesothelioma may be awarded a higher amount of damages than one 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 years of experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are frequently appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to manage the prosecution of asbestos dockets.
Asbestos litigation can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks associated with this type of litigation and assist them in establishing internal programs designed to proactively identify potential liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out more about how we can protect your business's interests.