• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm regularly speak at national conferences and are proficient in the myriad issues that arise in defending asbestos cases, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

Research has shown that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as well as lesser illnesses like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases statutes limit the time frame within which a victim may file an action. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury claims due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delaying nature of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in wrongful death cases) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of aspects that must be taken into account. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the time limit that the victim must file the lawsuit by, and failing to file a lawsuit by the deadline could result in the case being dismissed. The statute of limitations is different from state to state and the laws differ greatly. However, most states allow between one and six years after the date of diagnosis.

In asbestos cases in which the defendants are involved, they will typically attempt to invoke the statute of limitations to defend against liability. For instance, they could argue that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure and therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is a common defense in mesothelioma lawsuits, and can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another defense that could be used in a asbestos case is that the defendants did not have the resources or means to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complicated case and depends largely on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and were not able to to provide sufficient warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's home. In some cases it might be beneficial to bring a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. It usually has to do with the location of the employer or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that since their products left the plant as untreated steel, they didn't have a responsibility to warn about the dangers of asbestos lawsuits-containing products later added by other parties, such as thermal insulating and flange seals. This defense has been embraced in certain states, but it's not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the rules. The Court did not accept 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 use and have no reason to believe that users will be aware of this danger.

While this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to bring claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the tale. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims based on strict liability or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a wider reading of the bare metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia, for example the case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter, and was exposed to turbines and switchgear at a Texaco refinery that contained asbestos attorney-containing components.

In the same case in Tennessee, the Tennessee judge has stated that he would 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 had 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 can be applied to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges use the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos lawsuits are complex and require skilled lawyers who have a thorough knowledge of legal and medical issues, as well as access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys EWH have decades of experience in assisting clients with various asbestos litigation issues, including analyzing claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies, identifying and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony in depositions and in court.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals, such as a radiologist and pathologist who testify on X-rays or CT scans that reveal the lung tissue being damaged typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify about symptoms such as difficulty breathing that are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union and tax records as well as social security records.

An forensic engineering or environmental scientist may be required to clarify the cause of the asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed in the workplace and instead was ingested through clothing worn by workers or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs' lawyers will bring in economic loss experts to establish the monetary losses incurred by the victims. They will be able to calculate the amount of money that a victim suffered due to their illness and its effect on his or her lifestyle. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills as well as the cost of hiring a person to take care of household chores that the person is unable to do anymore.

It is important that plaintiffs challenge defendants expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on hundreds or even hundreds of other asbestos claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts could lose credibility with jurors.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also request summary judgment if they show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff was injured from exposure to the defendant's product. A judge will not grant summary judgement just because a defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make an accurate discovery. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in decades. Thus, establishing the facts that will build a case requires a review of a person's entire employment history. This involves a thorough review of the individual's social security, tax and union records, as well as financial records, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are due to an illness other than mesothelioma can have significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers employed this strategy to deny responsibility and obtain large sums. However, as the defense bar has grown the strategy is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

Because of this, an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos defense. This includes assessing the duration and extent of exposure as well as the severity of any diagnosed disease. 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 on behalf of manufacturers suppliers and distributors, contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have extensive experience serving as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel. They are frequently appointed by courts as liaison counsel to handle the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

asbestos lawsuits cases can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients understand the risks associated with this type of litigation and work with them to formulate internal programs designed to proactively detect potential safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our company can safeguard your company's interests.