14 Creative Ways To Spend Left-Over Asbestos Litigation Defense Budget

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The attorneys of the Firm regularly participate in national conferences and are knowledgeable in the many issues that arise in defending asbestos cases such as jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has shown that asbestos exposure can cause lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation sets a deadline for the length of time that follows an injury or accident, the victim is able to start a lawsuit. In the case of asbestos, the statute of limitations is different by state and is different from in other personal injury lawsuits because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock starts on the date of diagnosis or death in wrongful death claims instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why the victims and their families must consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of things that need to be taken into account. The statute of limitations is among the most important. The statute of limitations is the date that the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit could result in the case being thrown out. The statute of limitation varies from state to state and laws differ widely. However, the majority allow between one and six years after the victim was diagnosed.

In asbestos cases defendants typically use the statute of limitation as a defense against liability. They may say that, for instance, plaintiffs should have been aware or had knowledge of their exposure to asbestos and were under an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits. It it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

A defendant in an asbestos case may be able to claim that they did not have the resources or means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that is largely based 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 give adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. In certain situations, it may make sense to make a claim in a state other than the victim's. This usually has to do with the location of the employer or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare metal defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It asserts that because their products left the factory as raw metal, they were under no obligation to warn consumers of the risks of asbestos-containing substances that were added by other parties later for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions but not in all.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has altered the law. The Court has ruled against the preferred rule of manufacturers' bright line rule, and instead, a new standard under which manufacturers have a responsibility to warn if it knows that its product is likely to be dangerous for its intended purposes and does not have any reason to believe that its end users will be aware of that risk.

Although this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the story. For one reason, the DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims made on the basis of negligence or strict liability and are not covered under federal maritime law statutes, like the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive reading of the bare metal defense. For instance in the asbestos MDL in Philadelphia the case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to decide whether that state recognizes the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case worked as a carpenter and was exposed to turbines and switchgear at an Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he is likely to adopt the third perspective of bare metal defense. In that case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will influence the way judges apply the bare metal defense in other contexts for example, those involving tort claims brought under state law.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing 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 as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants with expert testimony in trials and depositions.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals such as pathologists and radiologists who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that show scarring of lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could also testify on symptoms, like breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a thorough description of the plaintiff's employment background, which includes an analysis of their tax, social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

It is possible to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. Experts in these fields can assist defendants argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed in the workplace and instead was brought home on workers' clothing or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Chesapeake asbestos lawyers  will bring experts in economic loss to establish the monetary loss suffered by the victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money a victim has lost due to their illness and its effect on their lifestyle. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring a person to take care of household chores that a person is unable to do anymore.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially in cases where they've given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. These experts can lose credibility with jurors when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also seek summary judgment if they can prove that the evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was injured due to their exposure to the defendant's product. A judge won't issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant points out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases mean that obtaining meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The duration between exposure and illness can be measured by decades. As such, establishing the facts that will create a case, requires a review of the entire work history. This requires a thorough examination of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial documents, as well as interviews with family members and co-workers.

Asbestos patients often develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms stem from an illness other than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have used this approach to deny responsibility and get large awards. However, as the defense bar has evolved and diversified, this strategy has been 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, an in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as in addition to the degree of any diagnosed illness. For example carpenters with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded more 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 attorneys have served as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts in order to manage asbestos dockets.

Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation and collaborate with them to develop internal programs to identify potential liability and safety concerns. Contact us to learn how we can safeguard the interests of your business.