자유게시판

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 knowledgeable in the myriad issues that arise when defending asbestos cases that include jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has proven 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 there is a statute that limits the time period after the date a victim is able to make a claim. In the case of asbestos, the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury lawsuits because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations begins at the time of diagnosis (or death in wrongful death cases) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is 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 a variety of things that need to be considered. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the deadline at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. In the event of a delay, it will result the case being thrown out. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies from state to state, and the laws differ widely. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the date of diagnosis.

In an asbestos case defendants frequently make use of the statute of limitations as a defense to liability. They might argue that, for instance, the plaintiffs should have known or were aware of their exposure to asbestos and that they had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and is difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case may also argue that they did not have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and could not be expected provide adequate warnings.

Generally speaking, it is preferential to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's home. In certain circumstances, it may make sense to make a claim in a different state from the victim's. This usually has something to do with where the employer is located or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a common strategy employed by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare metal defense asserts that since their products left the plant in bare steel, they didn't 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 states, but it's not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead formulated the standard that requires a manufacturer to warn 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 realize this danger.

Although this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to win claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the tale. For one reason, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims based 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 pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare metal. For instance in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia the case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to decide whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was a carpenter who had been exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos-containing parts at a Texaco refining facility.

In a similar case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to adopt the third perspective of the defense of bare-metal. In that case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare metal defenses apply to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges apply the bare metal defense in other situations for example, those involving tort claims under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require experienced lawyers with a deep knowledge of both legal and medical issues, 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 hiring experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants in expert testimony at depositions and trials.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like a radiologist and pathologist who testify on X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of the lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist is also able to testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties and coughing, which are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union, tax, and social security records.

A forensic engineer or environmental science expert may be required to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but was brought to the home through clothing worn by workers or by airborne particles.

Many of the plaintiffs lawyers will call in economic loss experts to determine the financial loss suffered by the victims. They can estimate the amount of money that a victim lost as a result of their illness and its impact on their daily life. They can also testify to expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores a person is no longer able to do.

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

In asbestos cases, defendants may also seek summary judgment in cases where they can demonstrate that the evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was injured by exposure to the defendant's products. However the judge will not grant summary judgment just because the defendant points to holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The issues of latency in asbestos cases mean that obtaining significant information can be almost impossible. The time between exposure and disease can be measured by decades. Thus, establishing the facts on which to build a case will require a thorough examination of the entire work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security, union and financial records, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos victims often develop less serious diseases like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be caused by a different disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

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

Because of this, a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential to a successful asbestos defense. This includes evaluating the severity and duration of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance, a woodworker who is diagnosed with mesothelioma is more likely to receive higher damage than someone who has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation for product manufacturers, distributors and suppliers, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have years of experience as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel. They are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

asbestos attorney litigation can be a bit complicated and costly. We help our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this type of litigation, and we assist them to create internal programs that are proactive and identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us to learn how we can protect the interests of your company.