Asbestos Law and Litigation

Asbestos lawsuits are a form of toxic tort claim. These claims are based upon negligence and breach of implied warranty. A breach of an express warranty is the product's failure to meet the minimum requirements for safe use, while the breach of an implied warranty is caused by misrepresentations of the seller.

Statutes Limitations

Statutes of limitation are just one of the many legal issues that asbestos lawsuit victims have to deal with. These are legal deadlines that determine when victims can bring lawsuits against asbestos attorneys manufacturers to recover damages or losses. Asbestos lawyers can aid victims determine the right date for their particular cases and make sure that they file within the timeframe.

For instance, in New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits is three years. Because asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma can take years to show up so the statute of limitations "clock" is typically set when the victim is diagnosed, not their exposure or work history. In cases of wrongful death, however, the clock typically starts when the victim dies. Families should be prepared to submit documentation, such as death certificates, when filing a suit.

It is important to remember that even if a victim's statute of limitations has expired, there are still options for them. Many asbestos companies have established trust funds for their victims and these trusts have their own timeframes for how long claims may be filed. Thus, a mesothelioma patient's lawyer can assist them in filing claims with the correct asbestos trust and receive compensation for their losses. The process isn't easy and requires the assistance of an experienced mesothelioma attorney. For this reason asbestos sufferers should consult an experienced lawyer as quickly as they can to begin the legal process.

Medical Criteria

Asbestos cases differ from other personal injury lawsuits in a variety of ways. asbestos lawyer lawsuits can be complicated medical issues that require expert testimony and careful investigation. They may also include multiple plaintiffs or defendants who all worked at the same workplace. These cases also typically involve complicated financial issues which require a thorough analysis of the individual's Social Security, union, tax and other documents.

Plaintiffs must prove that they were exposed to asbestos in each possible place. This may involve a thorough examination of more than 40 years of employment information to identify all locations where an individual could have been exposed. This can be lengthy and costly, considering that many of these jobs are long gone and those who were employed in them have passed away or fallen ill.

In asbestos lawsuits, it is not always necessary to establish negligence, as plaintiffs are able to pursue a claim under a theory of strict liability. Under strict liability, it is the duty of the defendant to prove that a product is dangerous in its own right and has caused injury. This is a more difficult standard to meet than the traditional burden of proof in negligence law, but it may allow plaintiffs to seek compensation even when a company did not act negligently. In many instances, plaintiffs may also sue under the theory of breach of implied warranties that asbestos products are suitable for their intended uses.

Two-Disease Rules

As the symptoms of asbestosis can manifest for years after the exposure, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact time of the initial exposure. It's also difficult to prove that asbestos was the reason of the illness. This is because asbestos-related diseases are characterized by a dose response curve. This means that the more asbestos a person has been exposed to, the greater their chance of developing an asbestos-related illness.

In the United States asbestos-related lawsuits may be filed by people who suffer from mesothelioma, or a different asbestos-related disease. In some cases the mesothelioma patient's estate could pursue the wrongful death claim. In wrongful death lawsuits compensation is awarded for medical bills, funeral costs and past pain and discomfort.

Despite the fact that the US government has banned the manufacturing, processing and importation of asbestos, certain asbestos materials still exist. These materials can be found in schools, residential and commercial structures, among other places.

Owners or managers of these buildings should hire an asbestos consultant to evaluate any asbestos-containing materials (ACM). A consultant can assist them to determine if any renovations are required and if ACM must be removed. This is especially important in the event that the building has been damaged in any way like abrading or sanding. ACM can become airborne and present an health risk. A consultant can recommend an action plan for abatement or removal which will reduce the risk of release of asbestos.

Expedited Case Scheduling

A mesothelioma lawyer who is qualified can help you understand the complicated laws in your state and can assist you with filing claims against companies who exposed you to asbestos. A lawyer can explain the difference between seeking compensation through workers' compensation and an individual injury suit. Workers' comp may have limitations on benefits that don't fully cover your losses.

The Pennsylvania courts have created a separate docket for asbestos cases that deals with these claims in a different way from other civil cases. This includes a unique case management order and the ability plaintiffs to have their cases put on a trial schedule that is expedited. This can help get cases to trial quicker and avoid the backlog of cases.

Other states have enacted legislation to help manage the asbestos litigation, such as setting medical criteria for asbestos cases, and restricting the number of times that a plaintiff can bring an action against multiple defendants. Some states limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. This can allow more money to be made available for those suffering from asbestos-related illnesses.

Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral, has been linked with numerous deadly diseases like mesothelioma. For decades, some manufacturers knew that asbestos was dangerous but concealed this information from workers and the general public in order to increase profits. Asbestos is banned in a number of countries but remains legal in some countries.

Joinders

Asbestos cases have multiple defendants and exposure to a variety of different asbestos-containing products. In addition to the usual causation rule the law requires plaintiffs establish that each such product was a "substantial factor" in the genesis of their condition. Defense lawyers often attempt to limit damages through various affirmative defenses, including the sophisticated user doctrine or defenses for government contractors. Defendants frequently seek summary judgment on the basis of insufficient evidence that defendant's product was exposed (E.D. Pa).

In the Roverano matter the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed two issues regarding the requirement that a jury be involved in percentage apportionment the liability in asbestos cases involving strict liability; and whether the court can exclude the inclusion on the verdict sheet of bankrupt companies with which the plaintiff has settled their case or entered into an agreement to release. Both plaintiffs and defendants were a bit concerned by the court's decision.

The court ruled that based on the explicit language of Pennsylvania's Fair Share Act, the jury must determine the an apportionment process on an amount-based basis in asbestos cases with strict liability. The court also concluded that the defense argument that a percentage apportionment was absurd and impossible to carry out in these cases was not without merit. The Court's decision significantly diminishes the significance of the popular asbestos defense of the fiber type, which relied on the idea that amphibole and chrysotile were the same in nature, however they had different physical properties.

Bankruptcy Trusts

Certain companies, confronted with massive asbestos lawsuits, decided to file for bankruptcy and create trusts to handle mesothelioma lawsuits. These trusts were created to provide compensation to victims, while not exposing companies reorganizing to further litigation. Unfortunately, these asbestos-related trusts have had ethical and legal issues.

One of the problems was discovered in an internal memo distributed by an asbestos plaintiffs law firm to its clients. The memo described a systematic strategy of hiding and delaying trust documents from solvent defendants.

The memorandum suggested that asbestos lawyers make an action against a business and then wait until the company filed for bankruptcy and then delay filing of the claim until the company was freed from bankruptcy. This strategy increased the amount of money recovered and avoided disclosures of evidence against defendants.

Judges have issued master order for case management that requires plaintiffs to submit trust documents in a timely manner prior to trial. Failure to comply may result in the plaintiff's being removed from a trial group.

While these efforts have resulted in a significant improvement but it's important to remember that the bankruptcy trust model isn't an all-purpose solution to the mesothelioma litigation crisis. A change in the liability system is required. The change will put defendants on notice of the possibility of exculpatory evidence being used against them and allow for discovery in trust documents and ensure that settlement amounts reflect the actual harm. Trusts for asbestos compensation typically is smaller than traditional tort liability systems, but it allows claimants to recover money without the time and expense of a trial.