It's The Complete Cheat Sheet For Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The Firm's attorneys regularly speak at national conferences and are well-versed in the many issues that arise when asbestos litigation, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has shown that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases the statute of limitations sets a deadline for the length of time that follows an accident or injury, the victim is allowed to bring a lawsuit. For asbestos, the statute of limitations is different by state and is different than in other personal injury claims because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation clock starts on the date of diagnosis or death in the case of wrongful death instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim has to make a claim by, and failing to do so could cause the case to be closed. The statute of limitations differs according to state, and the laws differ greatly, but most allow for between one and six years from the date the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

In an asbestos case defendants frequently employ the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they could argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about their exposure and thus had a duty to notify their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma litigation, and it can be difficult for the victim to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case could be able to claim that they didn't have the resources or means to warn people about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that is largely based on the evidence available. For example, it was successfully made in California that the defendants did not possess "state-of-the-art" knowledge and thus could not be expected to give adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. In certain circumstances it might be beneficial to file a lawsuit in a state other than the victim's. It usually has to do with the place 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 equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products were manufactured as unfinished metal, they had no obligation to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing products that were added by other parties at a later time like thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions, but not everywhere.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has changed the law. The Court did not accept the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead created the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers if it is aware that its product will be dangerous for its intended use and does not have any reason to believe that the end customers will be aware of the risk.

Although this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. For one it is that the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims founded on negligence or strict liability and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. 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 plaintiff who died in this case was carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines, and other asbestos-containing components at a Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case, a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he is likely to take a different approach to the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in that case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma following working on equipment that was repaired or replaced by contractors from third parties 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 contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is a complex affair and requires attorneys with vast knowledge of both law and medicine as well as access to top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, preparing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and bringing in experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants with expert testimony in depositions and trials.

In most cases, asbestos cases require the testimony of 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 due to 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 history, 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 in order to determine the source of exposure to asbestos. Experts in these fields can assist plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was brought home on workers' clothing or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers hire economic loss experts to assess the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money that a victim lost as a result of their illness and its effect on their lifestyle. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that a person cannot do.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the experts of the plaintiff, particularly in cases where they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. If they repeat their testimony, the experts could lose credibility with jurors.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment if they show that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff suffered injuries caused by their exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant points to gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a significant discovery. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured by decades. To determine the facts upon 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 documents, in addition to interviews with family members and coworkers.

Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with less serious diseases such as asbestosis before being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are caused by an illness other than mesothelioma can have significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, a few lawyers have employed this tactic to deny liability and obtain large awards. However as the defense bar has grown the strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges often dismiss claims based on lack of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is crucial to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating the severity and duration of the illness and the extent of the exposure. For example, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to suffer greater damages than someone who only has asbestosis.

asbestos litigation paralegal  defends asbestos-related litigation for product manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have been National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are regularly appointed as liaison counsel by courts to manage asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complex and expensive. We assist our clients in understanding the risks associated with this type of litigation and work with them to formulate internal programs to detect potential safety and liability issues. Contact us to learn how we can protect the interests of your business.